(b) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

(c) Fire prevention of general goods;

2.(a)(c) B

3.(a)(b) C

4.(b)(D)

5. (a) E;

6.(a)F

7.1.b) G

When Defendant C, D, E, F, and G fail to pay each of the above fines, the above Defendants shall be confined in the workhouse for a period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 per day into one day.

However, with respect to the defendant A and B, the execution of each of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant C, D, E, F, and G are ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Defendants are participants in assemblies for purposes, such as ‘I' organized by a repair organization such as ‘H organization' from March 1, 2018 to 13:00 (hereinafter referred to as ‘H organization').

1. The Defendants’ co-principal

A. On March 1, 2018, around 17:58, more than 3,00 members, etc. of H organization causing special property damage, were destroyed by the following: (a) on the part of the members of the Sejong Culture Center located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while the unsatisfed beyond the scope of reporting in the direction of the route of the route of the route of the Sejong Culture Center in front of the Sejong Culture Center, and the number of participants in assemblies, such as the victim K, etc., established in Jongno-gu Seoul Jongno-gu J of the market price of KRW 50 million (3 meters in diameter, height, 9 meters in height, L-shaped steel structure), the participants in assemblies, such as the Defendant E, removed the funeral plant, such as the yellow Ri, etc., attached to the above sculpture, and destroyed it.

At around 18:04 on the same day, Defendant A, upon witnessing the above head of the above head, destroyed the above head of the J-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was installed in the above head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and damaged 3 parts of the above head of the Si/Gun/Gu, and 2 parts of the J-J connecting stairs, which were installed in the above head of Si/Gun/Gu.

At around 18:10 on the same day with multiple participants, Defendant G continued to dump the instant L sculptures by leaving the above sculptures away from the above sculptures, and thereby, Defendant C, Defendant F, Q (the Seoul Central District Court sentenced on January 9, 2019 to two years for special property damage, etc., and currently pending the appellate trial on January 7, 2019) and M (the prosecution of non-detained for special property damage, etc. to the Seoul Central District Court on January 7, 2019) was destroyed by generating the above sculptures that far far away from J around 18:21 on the same day.

On the same day, at around 18:25, Defendant A and N (the Seoul Central District Court on January 7, 2019, which was not detained due to the crime of causing damage, etc. to a special article) released the part of the article of the above L, Defendant C removed part of the article of the above article, and Defendant A damaged the article of the above article by inserting the pipe between the article of the L, and Defendant A damaged the article of the above article by sucking the article of the article of the above article.

Defendant C, Defendant D, Defendant E, andO (the Seoul Central District Court on January 7, 2019) (the indictment of non-detained for the crime of causing damage to property, etc.) and the above M shall take away from the above sculptures by taking advantage of a chain pipe, etc., and Defendant E, after having taken the metal products located there into the Republic of Korea, shaking the L sculpture, and Defendant D removed electric wires, etc. attached to the L sculpture.

After that, Defendant B and P (the indictment of non-detained to the Seoul Central District Court on January 7, 2019) who observed the above damage scene was destroyed by the breaking the parts of the above L object in combination with it around 18:35 on the same day.

As a result, the Defendants, along with many participants in the assembly, destroyed the above L sculptures owned by the victim K et al., and at the same time, Defendant A, along with many participants in the assembly, destroyed 3 copies of the JJ glass party building building and 2 parts of the JJ connecting stairs connected to the lower part of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City.

(b) No person who participates in an assembly or demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act shall commit any act disturbing order by means of violence, intimidation, damage, fire prevention, etc.;

Nevertheless, from March 1, 2018 to March 13:00, the Defendants participated in an assembly for the purpose of "T," such as "T hosted by the H organization, etc.," and committed an act of damage as provided in paragraph 1(a) with other participants in the assembly. In addition, Defendant B, along with other participants in the assembly, disturbed the order, such as the act of fire prevention as provided in paragraph 2.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with multiple participants in the assembly to commit acts that disturb the order by destroying or extinguishing fire, etc.

2. Defendant B - General Goods Fire Prevention

On March 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around the front entrance of the JJ; (b) around March 18:37, 2018, the Defendant sent a fire to the part of the floor of the above L/S which was attached to the L/Sized L/Sized L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L/Sed L.

At around 18:42, the above P continuously participated in the assembly, and the above N made fire from the L-type part of the above L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type, etc. after which the participants in the assembly in the name-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L-type L

Accordingly, the defendant, in collusion with P, N, and many participants in assemblies, destroyed the above L lighting objects by setting fire, thereby causing public danger.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the defendant A, B, D, E, and G;

1. Each legal statement of Defendant C and F

1. Some statements in the police interrogation protocol regarding Defendant C

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol of Q,0, M, P, N, R, S, T, or U;

1. Each police statement on K, V, W, and X;

1. The statement of Defendant F;

1. Partial statements of Defendant C’s written statement

1. Reactors;

1. A report on internal investigation (the details of the report on the outdoor assembly (the demonstration progress report), the report on internal investigation (the analysis of information status), the report on internal investigation (the attachment of photographs of suspected suspects), the report on investigation (a summary of the contents of Q mobile phone recording), and the report on investigation (the verification of the form of inciting the military);

1. CD 1, CD2, CD3, CD4, CD5, CD6, CD7, such as the entire process photographs, documentary evidence photographs, documentary evidence photographs, documentary evidence videos, etc. against the Defendants, CD 9, CD8, CD11, and 2 video CDs, CD 9, and documentary evidence videos, etc., CD 10, CD 11, and 2, CD 11, and 2, photo of destruction of the J glass boundary wall, photo of stairs connected to the J (J), photo, photograph of fluor, photograph of fluor, photograph of fluor, photograph of fluoring material, photograph of fluor, written estimate, photo of fluoring material, photo of fluoring, 97, CD1 (A evidential material) of the entire illegal act;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act; Articles 24 Subparag. 5, 18(2), and 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a point of disturbing order);

(b) Defendant B: Articles 369(1) and 366 of the Criminal Act, Article 24 subparag. 5, Article 18(2), and Article 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 167(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

(c) Defendant C, D, E, F, and G: Articles 369(1), 366(1), and 366(a) of the Criminal Act; Articles 24 subparag. 5, 18(2), and 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 30(a) of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

(a) Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment imposed on the crime of causing damage to each special article, the crime of causing damage to each special article, the crime of violating the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the punishment and the punishment imposed on the crime of causing damage to a special article due to the damage to a article of heavy L

(b) Defendant B, C, D, E, F, and G: Articles 40 and 50 of each Criminal Act (Punishment on the crimes of destroying and damaging Special Property and of violating the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, and punishment on the crimes of destroying and damaging Special Property which are heavier than punishment)

1. Selection of punishment;

A. Defendant A: Imprisonment option

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment with prison labor for the crime of causing special property damage

C. Defendant C, D, E, F, and G: Selection of each fine

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment prescribed for a crime of constructive fire-prevention of general goods heavier than punishment)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Defendant B: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The conditions favorable to the reasons for sentencing below)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant C, D, E, F, and G: Articles 70 and 69(2) of each Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendant A and B: each Criminal Code Article 62(1)(The following consideration is made again for the reason of sentencing)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant C, D, E, F, and G: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judgment on Defendant C, F, and Defense Counsel’s argument

1. Summary of the assertion

A. Defendant F merely taken the Llight in the face of a house and took part in the instant assembly on the way of returning home.

B. Since the instant L sculpture structure is a steel structure, it cannot be deemed that there was any alteration or damage to the above sculpture due to the Defendants’ act. Since the above sculpture was already damaged at the time of the Defendants’ act, the Defendants did not have any awareness that it would prejudice the utility of the above sculpture. There was no fact that the Defendants conspired with other participants in the assembly to commit the instant crime.

2. Determination

A. Whether Defendant F was involved in the assembly

An assembly subject to guarantee and regulation under the Assembly and Demonstration Act refers to a “temporary gathering of specific or unspecified persons at a certain place for the purpose of externally expressing their opinions by forming a common opinion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6294, Apr. 26, 2012).”

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to deem Defendant F to be a participant in an assembly as prescribed in Article 18 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Accordingly, Defendant F and the defense counsel’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.

1) At the time of the crime of this case, most of the participants in the act of destroying the above sculptures who gathered near L sculptures at the time of committing the crime of this case were part of the participants in the assembly held by the H organization such as H organization, and had negative opinions on the above sculptures. In addition, a large number of the participants in the above assembly had a stimulative device as a means of externally expressing their opinions. Defendant F was also involved in the act of destroying the above sculptures with his body. Considering these circumstances, it is reasonable to deem that Defendant F was at the scene of the crime of this case for the purpose of externally expressing his political opinion like other participants.

2) Defendant F submitted a written statement that he met 2 times at the prosecutor’s office and met 30 minutes of meals. Defendant F took part in the crime of destruction of this case by taking place several times as seen in the following B: (a) Defendant F took part in the crime of destruction of this case by taking the above sculptures over several times; (b) Defendant F took part in this assertion, by itself, it is difficult to understand the previous statement.

3) Defendant F presented a credit card settlement text message to the effect that Defendant F was “the scene of the instant crime was passed through the process of eating at a restaurant (AB) near the AA Station and returning home.” Defendant F paid the payment at around 16:05 on March 1, 2018 at the above restaurant, and Defendant F appears to have had sufficient time to participate in the instant assembly (for assembly under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the participants need not attend the assembly at all times and temporarily gather at a certain place for the purpose of common use). Defendant F, the scene of the instant crime, is not on the route that Defendant F returned to his house (Seoul-do) near the AA Station.

B. Whether Defendant C/F’s act of damage and intent of damage is recognized

The crime of destroying and damaging property is a loss of or damage to the original utility by exercising a tangible power over all or part of the objects, which is a material or physical damage, and there is no superior even if it does not necessarily require damage to an important part of the object, and it is minor to the extent that it can be repaired simply.

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, it is reasonable to view that Defendant C and F damaged the above sculpture with the awareness that they would impair the utility of L sculpture by multiple force. Accordingly, this part of the allegation by Defendant C, F and the defense counsel is rejected.

1) According to the documentary evidence and video as at the time of the instant crime, Defendant C and F took place several times at around 18:21 on the day of the instant case. The part in the shape of L is composed of iron and yellow Pocks, and the part in the shape of the above L consists of iron and yellow P. The above Defendants’ act was cut down and tear tears. Defendant C was removed by a shot pipe, which formed the lower part of L sculptures at around 18:25 on the same day, and continued to remove the shot pipe, which constituted the lower part of L sculptures, by hand, and continued to cut the above sculptures. According to the above facts acknowledged, it is sufficient to recognize that Defendant C and F damaged the utility of the given sculpture.

2) The fact that Defendant C, FE L sculptures was taken through a sprinking, or that the sprinking of the sprinking of the above sculptures itself is recognized. As long as the utility of the above sculptures cannot be seen to have been entirely lost even if the above sculptures was already damaged, it is clear that the continuing destruction of the above sculptures constitutes an act that may impair its utility. In light of this point, it is difficult to accept the allegation that Defendant C and F did not have any awareness that the utility of the above sculptures would be undermined.

3) In light of the developments leading up to the meeting of this case (the defendant C was allowed to report the opening of the meeting published in the newspaper) and the form of the scene of the crime of this case, it seems that the defendant C and F participated in the meeting with many people who share the same intent, thereby damaging the L sculpture together with other people, and the above defendants could have sufficiently recognized the same fact.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment for not more than five years;

B. Defendant B: Imprisonment of six months to seven years and six months; and

(c) Defendant C, D, E, F, and G: Fines not exceeding 10 million won;

2. Scope of recommended sentences according to the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant A2

[Determination of Punishment] Destruction 02. Special Destruction and Damage of Cumulative Offense (Type 1)

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Area, Imprisonment of six months to one year and two months;

B. Defendant B

(1) the crime of fire prevention of general goods

[Determination of Punishment] Fire Prevention Standard / [Type 3] General Goods Fire Prevention

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Field, 10 months to 2 years of imprisonment

(ii) the crime of causing special property damage 3)

[Determination of Punishment] 02. Special damage to repeated crimes (Type 1). Special damage to repeated crimes

【Special Convicted Person】

[Recommendation and Scope of Recommendations] Basic Area, Imprisonment of six months to one year and two months;

3) Scope of recommending punishment based on the standards for handling multiple crimes: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than 10 months (the crime to which the sentencing criteria apply and the crime to which the sentencing criteria do not apply are concurrent crimes in the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, compliance with only the lower limit of the recommended sentencing range for

(c) C, D, E, F, and G: The sentencing criteria are not applied since they were selected as fines.

3. Determination of sentence: Defendant A (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence), Defendant B (two years of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence), Defendant C (3 million won of a fine), D, E, F, G (two million won of a fine).

A. Common sentencing grounds assembly and demonstration are fundamental rights that should be guaranteed as much as possible for the function of a democratic community along with the freedom of expression. However, in any case, assembly and demonstration must be held lawfully and peaceful, and the harmony between other legal interests should be fully taken into account. However, in the process of destroying a limited object set up in J while certain participants engaged in the assembly of this case, Defendants participated in the crime by breaking or exposing the above light, and making it difficult for them to take part in the crime. The Defendants’ criminal act of this case was damaged not only by the property value of the above Lmpins, but also by the trend of ordinary citizens included in the above light. In light of the background, means, results, and degree of damage, etc. of the crime committed by these Defendants, the crime and the criminal intent cannot be said to be mitigated.

However, in light of the favorable circumstances where the Defendants, as the simple participants of the assembly, reported the form of destroying the above sculpture, and the participants are deemed to have committed the crime by contingently, the Defendants’ punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account the following factors: the grounds and age of the Defendants’ individual sentencing, character and conduct, environment, motive and method of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc.

B. Individual reasons for sentencing

1) Defendant A

In light of the facts that the defendant is aged and has no record of criminal punishment other than punishment twice due to a fine, the utility of the above sculpture has been significantly damaged due to the defendant's destruction of the L sculpture, and the damage to the glass boundary wall and rail owned by Seoul Special Metropolitan City during that process, many participants in the assembly appear to have participated in the crime of damage due to the above act of the defendant, and the defendant's whole recognition of the crime of this case, but it is difficult to view that the crime of this case is seriously against the crime of this case, such as the defendant's removal of the article of this case, and the defendant's statement that he would not want to open the article of this case.

2) Defendant B

All of the crimes of this case are recognized by the defendant, and there is no record of criminal punishment since 2001. However, the defendant's participation in the fire prevention crime of this case and causes public danger shall be considered disadvantageous circumstances.

3) Defendant C.

The fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment is advantageous to the fact that the defendant denies the crime of this case, but does not properly reflect the fact that the defendant was not guilty, and that the extent of damage is significant, such as removing part of the L sculptures, and unloading the above sculptures by the pipe, etc., the above sculptures shall be considered disadvantageous circumstances.

4) Defendant D, E, and G Defendants are against the recognition of all the instant crimes; there is no record of criminal punishment; however, there is no favorable circumstance for the Defendants to have been subject to criminal punishment; and the extent of damage, such as the Defendants’ unloading of the L lighting water by the decline pipe, etc., shall be considered disadvantageous circumstances.

5) Defendant F

The Defendant merely caused the Defendant to go through L sculptures, but did not commit more serious damage, and the fact that there was no other criminal punishment except twice punishment by a fine, is favorable circumstances, or that there was a vindication that it is difficult to obtain other criminal punishment, while denying the instant crime, it seems that the attitude of serious reflection is insufficient, considering the unfavorable circumstances.

Judge Song In-bok

Judges Park Tae-soo

2) The violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not set the sentencing criteria, and the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not apply to the crime of causing special property damage and the crime of violating the Act on the Assembly and Demonstration. However, the sentencing criteria for the crime of causing special property damage, which is more severe, are referred to.

3) Although the sentencing criteria do not apply to the crimes of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and the ordinary concurrent relation, the sentencing criteria are referred to the sentencing criteria for the crimes of causing serious special property damage.