1. On the grounds of the Defendant’s appeal, the lower court affirmed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residential intrusion) and the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) due to holding the third L-related assembly.

Examining the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court and the lower court, the lower court did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in its judgment, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on assembly and promotion.

Defendant asserts to the effect that the above assembly constituted “an assembly related to learning, art, sports, religion, ceremony, friendship, recreation, marriage, funeral, marriage, funeral and ancestor worship,” as stipulated in Article 15 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and thus, the duty to report is not imposed.”

This is not a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is asserted by the court below that the defendant was the ground for appeal or was not subject to a judgment ex officio.

2. As to the reasons for the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court, based on the evidence presented by the prosecutor, as to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act by holding the 5th L-related non-reported assembly, on the grounds stated in its reasoning, held this part

It is not sufficient to recognize the recognition.

In light of the foregoing, not guilty was found.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err in its judgment by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the hosting of assemblies and joint principal offenders.

The Supreme Court precedents cited by the prosecutor as the reason of appeal are inappropriate to be invoked in the instant case, since the case differs from the instant case.

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