2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The plaintiffs' assertion 1) in L, the M assembly and N (hereinafter "M assembly" and "N assembly") were held respectively. The plaintiff A tried to go toO after attending M assembly. However, the police already obstructed all paths (roadway, delivery) that the above participants go toO, and the plaintiff could not move toO.

In addition, from 16:0 to 17:00 on the day to attend the N Assembly, the police had already installed a wall to control the roads in a total manner and could not move to the direction of L or O.

The above acts of the police do not have any legal basis, and they constitute illegal acts in violation of the excessive prohibition principle. Accordingly, since the plaintiff A violated the right of passage and the right of freedom of general action, the defendant Eul, who was the Commissioner General of Q2 at the time of each assembly of the Republic of Korea and Q2, should pay consolation money of 4 million won to each plaintiff.

B) From April 18, 2015 to 22:40, the police suspended the transmission of 9 CCTVs from the R to S operated and managed by the Q2:40, while concentrating participants by using the above CCTV, the police officer supervised their actions and ordered them to take on-site countermeasures. This is prohibited from arbitrarily manipulating the visual data processing devices for any purpose other than the purpose of installation of the visual data processing device, or devising other locations, and from using the recording function.

As a result, the part of the assembly participants, including the plaintiff A, did not undergo surveillance, infringed on the freedom of general conduct, exposed to the probability of being exposed to personal information, and suffered mental distress due to a long time surveillance by the police, and the defendant Republic of Korea and Eul must pay 1 million won consolation money to each of the plaintiff, respectively. 2).