(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2011. 7. 20. 선고 2010고단3517 판결[집회및시위에관한법률위반][미간행]
Defendant
Forwarding SUGE
Attorney Jeong-nam et al.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.
When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.
In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.
The Defendant, as the Director General of the △△△△△△△ Party, is the executive chairperson of the △△△△△△ Party’s “National Action” and the chairman of the △△△ Party’s “National Action Committee for the Countermeasures against the People’s Action for △△ Party.”
On June 24, 2009, the Defendant submitted to the Southern Police Station a report of outdoor assembly with the content that the Defendant holds the “Seoul Metropolitan Government Culture Mar. 1, 2009, wherein there are 1,000 people, who participate in the subrogation of the crime of △△ project reservoir in the square of Seoul Metropolitan Government Office,” wherein there are 1,000 people, who are responsible for the subrogation of the crime of △△ project reservoir.
On June 25, 2009, the Southern Police Station sent a notice of prohibition on the above report to the defendant on the ground that if an assembly reported first at the same time and at the same place is held simultaneously, the purpose of the assembly is to reflect it in mutual conflicts or interference.
Nevertheless, at around 16:10 to 18:05 on June 27, 2009, the Defendant organized an assembly at the Korean Culture Mar. 1, 2009, hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Jung-gu Seoul Central District Council, where there are 700 members, such as members, etc. belonging to the subrogation group for the △△ project reservoir in Seoul square.”
Accordingly, the defendant organized a meeting which was prohibited by the prohibition notice.
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each police statement of Nonindicted 2 and Nonindicted 1 (the Nonindicted Party in the appellate trial)
1. Notice of prohibition against outdoor assembly, report of outdoor assembly, request for notification to the recipient of the report of outdoor assembly, notification of objection regarding notification of prohibition against outdoor assembly report, notification of objection to objection, notification of objection to registration and delivery of
1. Information disclosure;
1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;
Articles 22(2), 8(2), and 8(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (Selection of Fines)
1. Detention in a workhouse;
Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act
1. Order of provisional payment;
Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
In order to prevent the withdrawal of opinions from those who do not agree with the government policy, the defense counsel argued that the notice of prohibition of assembly report of this case was made on the ground of the possibility of conflict with the first reported assembly and the notification of prohibition notice was not given an opportunity to dispute the legality of the disposition of prohibition because the notification of prohibition was not received. However, in full view of the reporter, purpose, date, time, place, organization to participate and the number of participants of the first reported assembly recognized by the statement of each evidence and the fact-finding statement in the ruling, the number of persons scheduled to participate in the assembly reported at the same time and at the same time, the notification of prohibition of assembly report of this case by the chief of the competent police station on the ground that the notification of prohibition notice is legitimate. Thus, the defense counsel's above assertion is not accepted.
Judges Lee Jae-chul