집회및시위에관한법률위반등
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant
A shall be punished by a fine of 2,00,000 won, and a fine of 70,000 won, respectively.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendants 1) misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles cannot be deemed to have held a “meeting” as referred to in the Assembly and Demonstration Act on the ground that the Defendants were standing in front of Louts in the process of filing a civil petition or demanding negotiations.
A meeting which does not maintain order even if it falls under a domestic assembly;
It is difficult to see that the order of dissolution by the police is unlawful, since it does not constitute a case where a direct danger to the legal interests of others or public peace and order is obviously caused.
Although the Defendants did not comply with the request for the withdrawal of L employees, the Defendants’ act is not illegal as a legitimate act with legitimacy of the purpose, reasonableness of means or methods, balance of legal interests, urgency, and supplement.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the charges of this case guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion.
2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (Defendant A: fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B: fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 2 million, Defendant B: a fine of KRW 700,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.
2. The Defendants asserted that there was a misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles of the Defendants at the lower court, and the lower court, in its judgment, stated in detail the Defendants’ assertion and its determination under the title “determination on the Defendants’ and their defense counsel’ assertion” and rejected all of the above arguments. Examining the judgment of the lower court in comparison with the records, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable, and contrary to the Defendants’ assertion, there were no errors of misunderstanding of facts or of misapprehending of legal principles.
Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.
3. The Defendants and the Prosecutor’s argument of sentencing is unfair.