(b) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

C. Special obstruction of performance

e cz;

A person shall be appointed.

* 74 EE

Seoul basic domicile

2.(a)(b)

Hong (TI),

Residence Jeonnam

Jeonnam of the original domicile

3.(a)(b)

(DTOTOS - DO TECTONS), DTS

ITE ITE ITE

Reference domicile Chungcheongbuk

4.(a)(b)

uC*-*m), FH

Housing astronomic't City

Reference domicile City

5.(a)

E-EC-,

Housing Kim Jong-si I T

Reference domicile Kim

6.(a)(b)

c) .

CEDDDDE DEP before residence

ITE THE E prior to the place of registration

7.(a)(b)

C-, E

Residence and Reference domicile Si

8.(a)(b)

Kim N (DOTED OTOTS), DLOVE

【H H H H H HH H H H HH H

A person shall be appointed.

PoD ETC prior to the place of registration

9.(a)(b)

A person shall be appointed.

Seoul: Residence:

Seoul: Residence:

Busan District Court Decision 200

10.(a)(b)

Gangseo-gu (S) (S),

IT in terms of residence and place of registration

11.(a)(b)

IT (TTE), TPPE

Seoul Residence

Seoul: Residence:

Seoul basic domicile

12.(a)(b)

21 C** - *m) -

Residential Gangwon

Gangwon in the place of registration

Seoul High Court Decision 2006Do1719, 2219-1 (Separation) decided August 31, 2007

With respect to the violation of the Act on the Assembly and Demonstration of December 2, 2001 and the general traffic obstruction among the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and found the Defendants not only did the organizer of the seed and seedling park assembly but also did not fully participate in the process of holding, determining, and preparing the meeting of the seed and seedling park assembly. It is difficult to view that the Defendants did not have any possibility of predicting the intent of the organizer of the assembly and the participants to jointly act, the scope of reporting, and the traffic obstruction, and the Defendants’ intent to jointly act, and functional control or control based on their common intent. On December 2, 2001, the lower court acquitted the Defendants on the ground that there was no evidence to find otherwise that the Defendants conspired with the organizer, etc. of the above assembly, and thus, found the Defendants not guilty

In light of the records, the fact-finding and decision of the court below as mentioned above are correct, and there is no error of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence, or of misunderstanding of the rules of evidence as to the organizer of an assembly as prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act and the legal principles as to collective action.

In addition, the prosecutor did not submit any grounds of appeal concerning the remaining criminal facts against Defendant Han-gu and Cheongsan.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Young-ran

Justices Kim Jae-sik

Justices Noh Jeong-hee.