집회및시위에관한법률위반등
The part of the judgment of the court below regarding Defendant B except for the part of dismissal of a request for adjudication on constitutionality.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court’s sentence (e.g., the postponement of sentence) is too unhued and unreasonable.
B. The Defendants (the factual errors and the misapprehension of legal principle)’s one-person demonstration on July 16, 2010, which was held by the Defendants on July 16, 2010, does not fall under the case where many people appear to exercise authority or gain influence by nature of the demonstration, and is not included in the concept of demonstration under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”). The one-person demonstration constitutes a demonstration under the Assembly and Demonstration Act.
Even if the Defendants were to examine the laws and precedents through the post professors, and confirm the legality of the first person's demonstration, it is reasonable to believe that their actions do not constitute a crime, and thus, the illegality is dismissed.
(2) The regulation of a press dog that takes place outside a room is an interpretation that goes against the purport of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of assembly.
(3) Defendant B merely assisted Defendant A to conduct practical affairs, and thus cannot be deemed as the organizer of an assembly and demonstration.
(4) The press conference held on August 9, 2010 is deemed to be the same as the press conference reported in advance, and this does not constitute an unreported assembly.
(5) On August 9, 2010, a place where a press conference was held on the press was two-lanes of one-way roads, and the Defendants cannot be deemed to have obstructed traffic in light of the time, reasons, and circumstances leading up to occupying the roads.
(6) Each of the instant actions by the Defendants constitutes a justifiable act in light of the motive, purpose, and reasonableness of the means and method, etc.
2. Judgment on the grounds of appeal by the Defendants
A. As to the assertion that a demonstration, which was held on July 16, 2010, does not constitute a demonstration, Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that a group of unspecified persons may freely pass through the public, such as roads, squares, parks, etc. for common purposes.