Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the purport of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, the issue of whether an outdoor assembly or demonstration held in reality constitutes “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported purpose, date, time, place, method, etc.” under Article 16(4)3 of the said Act shall be determined by whether the assembly or demonstration clearly deviates from the scope expected by the report, and is extremely difficult to achieve the purpose of the report system. In determining it, the freedom of assembly or demonstration is a citizen’s fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution, and as the organizer of the assembly or demonstration, it is difficult to expect the detailed matters of the method of the assembly or demonstration to be reported in advance, and there is an inevitable change in the process of the assembly or demonstration, etc. In light of the fact that there is an inevitable change in the method of the assembly or demonstration, the court below’s determination should be made in advance and comprehensively by comparing the reported contents and actual circumstances with the first instance of the assembly or demonstration in front of the report, and the first instance court’s decision on the first instance court’s overall and comprehensive manner.