[2] In a case where the commissioner of the competent district police agency prohibits an outdoor assembly and a report on progress at a regional headquarters of the Korean Democratic Trade Union Federation on the grounds that it is obvious that there is no benefit to seek revocation of the prohibition notice, and the part that could have been held at the scheduled date and time constitutes a major part of the prohibition notice, or is likely to impede traffic flow, is an excessive restriction on freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution, and thus, constitutes an unlawful disposition exceeding the discretionary power

[3] The case holding that in a case where the head of the competent police station permitted 1/3 of India's delivery as a passage through pedestrian and, in the case of an assembly, it cannot be deemed that the above disposition of notice was deviates from or abused police discretion or violated the principle of excessive prohibition

[2] The case holding that in a case where the commissioner of the competent district police agency prohibits an outdoor assembly and a progress report at the regional headquarters of the Korean Democratic Trade Union Federation on the grounds that it is obvious that the effect of the prohibition notice would increase the inconvenience for nearby merchants and the passage of the general public, the part that could hold an assembly at the scheduled date and time until the judgment is rendered is inappropriate as there is no legal interest to seek cancellation of the prohibition notice, and in principle, the prohibition of assembly is allowed only when there is no clear threat to public safety and order, and the prohibition of assembly is a final means that can be considered only after all other means that restrict the freedom of assembly and the possibility of allowing the assembly by attaching the conditions, and it is insufficient to prove that the Commissioner of the Korean National Police Agency merely falls under the main point or it is likely to interfere with traffic communication, and thus, it is unlawful as excessive restriction on the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution.

[3] The case holding that in a case where the chief of the competent police station grants permission of 1/3 of India as to an outdoor assembly and a progress report at a regional headquarters of the National Democratic Trade Union Federation, and the head of the competent police station with the condition that delivery shall be made in the case of an assembly and demonstration on the road as a pedestrian passage, it may be restricted with the condition attached to the order of traffic order when it is deemed necessary for the assembly and demonstration on the main road under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; the course of the above assembly report is not only the main road but also the main road; the way in which 500 people go too narrow and the way in which the above assembly report is made is likely to cause serious traffic inconvenience; and the above disposition is based on the condition that it is not likely to seriously impede the achievement of the purpose of the assembly, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the above disposition of notification of the condition was abused or abused, or that it violated the principle of excessive prohibition.

2. The corresponding part shall be revoked from February 8, 2010 to February 11, 2010 as the Commissioner of the Busan Local Police Agency notified the Plaintiff of the prohibition of an outdoor assembly as of February 3, 2010, and the corresponding part shall be revoked from February 5, 2010 to February 11, 2010.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Southern Chief of Police Station is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part 1/10 arising between the Plaintiff and the Commissioner of the Busan Busan Local Police Agency shall be borne by the Plaintiff, the remainder by the said Defendant, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Busan Southern Police Station

A. (1) On February 15, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) around February 15:10, 2010, to the Commissioner of the Busan Local Police Agency (hereinafter “Defendant Commissioner of the National Police Agency”); (b) as the name of the assembly, the name of the assembly “the resolution for the opposition to the temporary retirement for the Hanjin Heavy Industries, and for the guarantee of fundamental labor rights”; and (c) as the viewing square, (d) as the entrance of the vice exhibition, the Plaintiff reported the assembly and its progress (hereinafter “the first assembly report”).

2) On February 1, 2010, the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency: (a) on February 1, 2010, the Plaintiff: (b) it is apparent that if there are more than 1,00 persons live in the course of the first assembly report and the first assembly report fall under the main roads prescribed by the Presidential Decree, it may seriously interfere with the passage of the vehicle; and (c) in the case of (d) the assembly place, the assembly place is likely to lead to a large number of the roads if the roads are mobilized because of the narrowness of the roads; (d) it is clear that there is a possibility that the assembly will lead to a large number of local residents, and then the assembly is likely to lead to a large number of local residents, to select a happy way, which is not a major road, and to specify and supplement the detailed method of progress along

3) On February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff sent to the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency and order keepers from 20 to 50 persons on the following grounds: (a) on February 2, 2010, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that it would not interfere with the passage of the road by adding them to the former 20 to 50 persons; (b) the Plaintiff did not stop or interfere with traffic at an assembly organized by the Plaintiff; and (c) although the place of assembly was

4) On February 3, 2010, the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency, against the Plaintiff’s report on the first assembly on February 3, 2010, in the case of assembly, the place of assembly (1), (2), and (3) assembly is permitted, but in the case of assembly (4), the assembly was prohibited for the same reason as a supplementary notification, and in the case of a progress, it is evident that the course of reporting the reported person would cause enormous impediment to the traffic of the vehicle at the time of reporting person as a major road (hereinafter “the first prohibition disposition”).

B. (1) On February 3, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) around 11:50 on February 3, 2010, the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency, the name of the assembly as “the opposition to the temporary retirement for the Hanjin Heavy Industries, the resolution for guaranteeing the basic labor rights,” and (b) the place of assembly as “the Busan Square, ② the written judition delivery, and ③ the assembly and a performance report (hereinafter “the second assembly report”) as shown in [Attachment 2].

2) On February 3, 2010, the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency issued a notice to the Plaintiff on February 3, 2010, that the Plaintiff should supplement the specific place of assembly, including the time for the completion of the assembly and the place of assembly, and that the transit of various methods such as rads, etc., and the place of intermediate events, among the methods of demonstration, shall be specified and supplemented, and that the Plaintiff shall select a driving path, other than major roads, and specify and supplement the specific method of progress in the selected driving path.

3) On February 3, 2010, the Plaintiff respondeded to the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency, the end time of the assembly to 17:59, and attached and supplemented a specific place to a summary, and the method of “scambboard” to the effect that it is clearly stated and supplemented that flass cards and diskettes are carried out to destination, and that flass are not carried out by maintaining and conducting each warning, and that it is clearly stated and supplemented that it is not carried out, and that the order keeper would be posted from the previous six to 36, thereby preventing interference with the passage of the road.

4) On February 5, 2010, the Commissioner General of the Korean National Police Agency: (a) the Plaintiff’s second assembly report; (b) the place of assembly; (c) the place of assembly; (b) the place of assembly is permitted; (c) the main road in which it is evident that the reflect of neighboring merchants and the inconvenience of ordinary citizens might be increased; and (d) in the case of a progress, it is obvious that the reported course would seriously interfere with the passage of the vehicle at the time of the report as a major road (hereinafter “the second prohibition disposition”).

C. 1) On February 5, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) on the name of the assembly, the chief of the Defendant Busan Southern Police Station (hereinafter “the chief of the Defendant Police Station”); (b) on the name of the assembly, the Plaintiff reported the assembly and its progress (hereinafter “third assembly report”) as indicated in the attached Table 3, with the name of the assembly as “a resolution for the opposition to the Jin Heavy Industries, the worker’s liability is opposed to the workers, job creation, and the MB MB MB M&A’s decision; and (c) the place of assembly as the front of the Busan

2) On February 5, 2010, the chief of the police station notified the Plaintiff on February 5, 2010 that he/she will clearly describe and supplement the date of birth of moderatorss and cellular phones, and that he/she will select a driving path, other than a major road, and that he/she will clarify and supplement the specific method of driving along the selected driving path.

3) On February 6, 2010, the Plaintiff responded to the purport that the chief of the Defendant’s police station, and the order keeper, at any time, can communicate the Plaintiff’s employees through the Plaintiff’s office and it is deemed unnecessary to make a detailed statement and supplement. The order keeper should be additionally posted from 14 to 31 persons, so as not to interfere with the passage of the road, and other routes than the reported routes are the structural frame, which would rather cause inconvenience to the residents’ lives, such as noise.

4) On February 7, 2010, the chief of the police station, upon the Plaintiff’s third assembly report, attached the condition that delivery shall be secured as a passage to the pedestrian, and in the case of a pedestrian, delivery shall be granted to the pedestrian, and in the case of a pedestrian, delivery other than the roadway (hereinafter “Disposition of Notice of Conditions of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-3, Gap evidence 2-2 and 3-1-4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Relevant statutes;

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

3. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant asserts that both the first and second prohibitions and the second notifications of the conditions of this case deviate from or abused the police discretion or violated the principle of excessive prohibition, and that the revocation of each of the above dispositions was unlawful, and therefore there is no interest in the lawsuit seeking revocation of each of the above dispositions.

B. 1) In a case where the chief of the police station who received the report of an assembly or demonstration made a disposition of prohibition under Article 8 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”), the organizer of the assembly or demonstration may file an objection or institute an administrative litigation under Article 9(1) of the Act. However, there may be cases where the date and time of the assembly or demonstration originally scheduled during the adjudication procedure or the administrative litigation procedure is excessive. In preparation for such a case, Article 9(3) of the Act provides that in a case where the disposition of prohibition is judged to be illegal or unreasonable or becomes null and void, the person who filed an objection may hold the assembly or demonstration by newly setting the date and time and reporting it to the chief of the competent police station 24 hours prior to the date and time of the assembly or demonstration, and even if the first scheduled date and time of the assembly or demonstration had continued during the administrative litigation seeking the revocation of the disposition of prohibition, the organizer of the assembly or demonstration may still seek the revocation of the disposition of prohibition of an objection or the administrative litigation.

However, in such a case, the benefit of a lawsuit can be re-convened due to the disposition of prohibition, and if the effect of the disposition of prohibition is suspended and it was possible to hold an assembly or demonstration at the scheduled date and time, it is reasonable to view that there is no legal interest in seeking the cancellation of the disposition of prohibition in such a case as there is no need or ground to hold a new assembly or demonstration pursuant to Article 9(3) of the Act by cancelling the subsequent notification of prohibition.

2) As to the instant case, it is apparent in the record that the effect of the pertinent part on February 12, 2010, which was the date of the second prohibition disposition, was suspended until the pronouncement of the instant judgment, and as such, the Plaintiff cannot be said to have any legal interest in seeking revocation of the said disposition by the instant lawsuit, and as such, the relevant part on February 12, 2010, which was held on February 12, 2010 among the instant lawsuit, is unlawful.

However, despite the scheduled date and time limit for each disposition other than this part, the benefit of lawsuit seeking its revocation is still recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's defense is justified within the above scope of recognition.

4. Whether the disposition of the first prohibition and the second prohibition from February 8, 2010 to February 11, 2010 as of February 201 as of the date of holding of the second prohibition is legitimate

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The following dispositions shall be revoked because they do not meet the requirements or excessively prohibit assemblies in advance as follows, thereby deviating from or abusing police discretion or violating the excessive prohibition principle:

1) As to the first prohibition disposition

④ The hindrance to traffic communication, which is likely to result from an assembly, seems to be resolved by other means that restrict the freedom of assembly and demonstration more, and there is no basis to lead to a road occupation assembly, and there is no reason to go against neighboring merchants. The first assembly report is merely a subjective and abstract standard without any grounds. The course of the first assembly report is a section in which there has been no prohibition of progress once since the democratization war in 1987, and the demand to specify and supplement the specific progress method of the first assembly to select and select a person who is not a major road, not a major road, and to specify and supplement the specific progress method of the first assembly as a report system.

2) As to the part on February 8, 2010 to February 11, 2010 as of the date and time of holding the second prohibition disposition

(3) The place of assembly is not a road included in the main road, but can be solved by other means expected by holding an assembly at the above place. The course of the report of the second assembly is a section in which there has been no prohibition of progress once until the date of the democratization movement in 1987.

3) As to the disposition of notice on the condition of this case

Although the three-time assembly report is included in the main road, the distance is merely about 1 km, so it seems very insignificant and temporary that the degree of interference with traffic flow is very insignificant, and if other driving paths are selected, the house can only be circumvented to the alley, and if it is used in accordance with the above disposition of notice of the conditions, there is no example attached to the condition that the vehicle will use the report of assembly to take advantage of the road, such as collision between the entrance signboards installed in India and the residents using the delivery, and it is predicted that the delivery will take advantage of the road.

B. Determination

1) From February 8, 2010 to February 11, 2010 as of the date and time of holding of the first and second prohibitions are considered as well.

A) The representative public authority’s act that limits the freedom of assembly is a prohibition, dissolution, and conditional permission of assembly as prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Restriction on the freedom of assembly is justified only when it is essential to protect other important legal interests. In particular, prohibition and dissolution of assembly can be permitted only when it is clearly necessary to protect public peace and order. The prohibition and dissolution of assembly is a final means that can be considered only after all other means that restrict the freedom of assembly less restrictive than the freedom of assembly, i.e., the possibility of permitting assembly by attaching conditions (see Constitutional Court en banc Decision 200Hun-Ba67, 83 (Joint Decision) of October 30, 2003).

B) Further to the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are acknowledged as follows: (i) the progress of each assembly report at first and second assemblies falls under major roads of major cities under the Act; (ii) Article 12 of the Act provides that an assembly or demonstration organizer may not, in principle, prohibit the assembly or demonstration on the main roads; (ii) the Plaintiff increased the order keeper to be placed in the first and second assemblies as to the Defendant’s supplementary notification at least twice to five times, respectively; (iii) the date and time of the first assembly report at a customary market is expected to be considerable within a period of time or one day before the Gu administration, and may interfere with the traffic flow itself; (iv) The prohibition of assembly is, in principle, limited to cases where there is a direct threat to public safety and order; and (v) there is a lack of sufficient means to restrict the assembly or demonstration, to which extent the number of assembly or demonstration is likely to interfere with each other; and (v) there is a lack of sufficient means and conditions to restrict the assembly or demonstration.

2) On the disposition of notice as to the condition of this case

Article 12 of the Act provides that when it is deemed necessary to ensure traffic flows with respect to an assembly or demonstration on major roads, the conditions for maintaining the order of traffic may be attached to the restriction. The facts acknowledged earlier are as follows. In other words, the following facts are acknowledged in addition to the overall purport of the arguments. ① The course of the third assembly report is not only the main road, but also the main road in which more than 500 persons run along the third assembly report are narrow and thus, there are concerns over causing serious inconvenience to traffic by causing interference with the traffic flow of major roads and surrounding roads. ② Even if the conditions are carried out by India in accordance with the disposition of notification of this case, the accident may be sufficiently prevented by taking measures such as securing the passage of the general public or adding order keepers, and ③ The conditions based on the above disposition are subject to the above disposition, and thus, it cannot be said that it seriously impedes the achievement of the purpose of the assembly of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's allegation in this part of the judgment of this case cannot be justified.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the lawsuits in this case, the part corresponding to February 12, 2010 among the second-prohibited measures taken by the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency is unlawful, and thus, the remaining claims against the defendant is accepted as reasonable, and the claims against the chief of the police station are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment 1] List: omitted

[Attachment 2] Relevant Statutes: omitted

Judges Do-type (Presiding Judge) Maximum Do-type correspondence