Among them, the part of the first and third crimes in the judgment of the court below against Defendant B and the part against Defendant D.

A. On May 12, 2015, Defendants (1) were not an outdoor assembly under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly Act”) (Defendant A and E), which was not an assembly under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly Act”). On May 12, 2015, outdoor assembly was merely an assembly to be reported. The assembly is not an assembly subject to reporting.

(B) In comparison with the damage of property, it cannot be deemed that leaving a net in which a paint is injected on the outer wall of the Labor Agency (Defendant B, D) constitutes the damage of property.

(C) The defendant C is not the organizer of the assembly (the defendant C).

(D) The form of model tolerance does not constitute a violation of the matters to be observed (Defendant A and F). The Defendants’ form of model tolerance at an assembly on December 13, 2014 cannot be deemed as a violation of the rules to be observed by the organizer or participant.

(E) There was no intention to obstruct the performance of official duties (defendant A, F) by Defendant A and F.

(F) On April 24, 2015, the fact that Defendants A and C were unable to interfere with their general traffic by force (Defendant A and C) was occupying the four streets was caused by the police in an unreasonable manner to prevent the assembly.

(2) The unfair sentencing (Defendant A, B, C, D, and F) committed by the lower court against the Defendants (Defendant A: 1 year and six months of imprisonment with prison labor; 3 years of suspended sentence; 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes set forth in the holding; 6 years of suspended sentence; 10 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the crimes set forth in the holding; 2 years of suspended sentence; 8 months of imprisonment with prison labor for the defendant D: 6 months of suspended sentence; 2 years of suspended sentence) are too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (with respect to Defendant A, B, C, D, and F)’s each of the above punishments the court below decided against the Defendants is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. Prior to determining the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal, we examine ex officio the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act against Defendants B and D (a group, deadly weapons, etc.) prior to the determination of the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal.

The Constitutional Court decided September 24, 2015, 154Hun-Ba154,398 (Joint), 2015 Hun-Ba3, 9, 21 (Joint).