1. The part against Defendants 1 and 2 in the judgment of the court below is reversed.

2. Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,00.

3. In the event that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not pay a fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

4. To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the fine against the defendant 1 and the defendant 2.

5. Of the facts charged against Defendants 1 and 2, all of the charges of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on May 1, 2009 are acquitted.

[Defendant 3]

The prosecutor's appeal against the defendant 3 is dismissed.

[Defendant 4 (Defendant 3)]

1. The part against Defendant 4 in the judgment of the court below is reversed.

2. Defendant 4 shall be punished by a fine of 300,000 won.

3. Where Defendant 4 fails to pay a fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

4. To order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the fine against Defendant 4;

A. The part on Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on May 1, 2009

A) Defendant 1 (Definite person): The Defendant already deserted from the assembly or demonstration of the instant case at least 20 cc prior to the occurrence of violent circumstances.

B) Defendant 2 (Deficior): The Defendant merely sought an assembly or demonstration of the instant case and did not participate therein.

2) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on May 2, 2009

A) Defendant 1 (Definite person): The Defendant was unaware of the notice of prohibition to the instant assembly.

B) Defendant 2 (De facto Error): The Defendant only sought a meeting of this case and did not have organized it.

B. The part against Defendant 3

A prosecutor (in fact-finding and unreasonable sentencing): According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, such as the defendant's telephone details and photographs, the defendant can sufficiently recognize the facts of each crime, and the sentence against the defendant should be determined accordingly.

C. The part on Defendant 4

Defendant 4 (Legal Nature): The public prosecution against the defendant is instituted again for the case in which the public prosecution was already instituted.

2. Determination

A. The part on Defendant 1 and Defendant 2

1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on May 1, 2009

Article 22(4) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”) does not merely punish a person who has participated in an assembly or demonstration that is used by another participant for assault, threat, damage, or fire prevention, but also punish a person who has participated in the assembly or demonstration as for such unlawful purpose, knowing that the assembly or demonstration itself is clearly planned and best to pose a direct threat to public peace and order by means of collective assault, threat, damage, fire prevention, etc. This is the same in light of the fact that the above provision explicitly provides a restrictive term “the knowledge of such fact,” and that it is intended to punish a person who has participated in the assembly or demonstration more severe punishment than other punishment provisions related to the assembly or demonstration.

However, among the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, there is only a photograph that Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 did not act with any other citizen, and there is no evidence to recognize that the assembly and demonstration itself was clearly planning and leading up to a direct threat to public peace and order by means of collective assault, threat, damage, fire, etc. on May 1, 2009, or that it was clearly planned and leading up to such unlawful purpose. [In addition, even though the prosecutor had already instituted a public prosecution, he did not enter the form of demonstration in Article 22(4) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 40 of the Criminal Act, Article 23 subparag. 3 (Participation in Outdoor Assembly and Demonstration after sunset) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 23 subparag. 3 (Participation in Outdoor Assembly and Demonstration after sunset) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and there is no correction or supplement in the process of changing the indictment and cancelling the public prosecution in accordance with the Constitutional Court's decision of unconstitutionality. Accordingly, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to prove this part of the facts charged to the extent reasonable doubt.

2) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on May 2, 2009

According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, even though the court below recognizes the fact that the assembly was prohibited on May 2, 2009 by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2, and it can be sufficiently recognized that the assembly was held as stated in the judgment of the court below. Accordingly, the defendants' assertion is without merit.

B. The part against Defendant 3

For the reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court acquitted all Defendant 3 of all the charges. In full view of the circumstances in the reasoning of the lower court’s reasoning recognized based on evidence, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is just and acceptable, and there is no error of mistake of facts as alleged by the prosecutor. Accordingly, the Prosecutor’s assertion is

C. The part on Defendant 4

1) Legal principles

According to the records, Defendant 4’s prosecution against the assembly on May 2, 2009 against the crime of violating the Assembly and Demonstration Act and the crime of interference with business was instituted on October 5, 2010, and the case is pending in Supreme Court Decision 2014Do15436. However, the facts charged in the above case, which had already been prosecuted, are clearly known that it would pose a direct threat to the public peace and order. However, the facts charged in the above case, which has already been pending in the prosecution, knowingly participated in the assembly and demonstration. However, the facts charged in the above case, which had been notified of the prohibition, clearly differ in the form of the act or the legal interests and interests of damage. Therefore, although the two facts charged are identical to one assembly, it cannot be deemed that the prosecution against the Defendant constitutes a case in which the prosecution against the Defendant had already been instituted again. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

2) Ex officio determination

According to the record, Defendant 4 was sentenced to two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a crime of causing bodily injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties, etc. at the Seoul Central District Court on October 24, 2014, and the judgment became final and conclusive on June 23, 2015. The Defendant’s crime in the judgment of the lower court, which became final and conclusive after the sentence of the lower court, was committed in relation to each of the crimes and the latter part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the part on Defendant 4 in the judgment of the lower court

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since each appeal by Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 is well-grounded, pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the part against Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 in the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the prosecutor's appeal against Defendant 3 is again ruled as follows. Since there is no reason to file an appeal against Defendant 3, it is dismissed pursuant to Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. Since the part against Defendant 4 in the judgment of the court below as to Defendant 4 in the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(2) of the Criminal Procedure Act

From May 2, 2008 to August 15, 2008, 50 organizations, such as “○○○○○○○○○ Council,” “△△△△△ Council,” “△△△△△△△ Committee,” “△△△△△ Committee,” etc. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○○ Committee”) decided May 2, 2009 to hold a meeting on May 2, 2009, for the purpose of asserting the decline of the e-mail regime, the trend of victims, the punishment for the responsible person, etc. of the instant victims of the candlelight and the one-year candlelight.”

The “Candlelight 1 week’s candlelight Movement” was almost the same as the pan-national candlelight Movement against the import of U.S. beef, or as the organizer, organizer, purpose of the assembly, the tendency of participants, and the contents of the assertion. Furthermore, prior to the beginning of the assembly, the participants expressed desire to the employees in charge of the Seoul Station security department security department and the police assigned to the surrounding area of the Seoul Station that the participants agreed to hold the assembly, while the Korea Railroad Corporation and the Han Crho Cropians received the “facility protection request” at the competent police station, as there is concern of the disturbance of the demonstration team and the damage of water.

On April 21, 2009, Defendant 1, the chairman of the “○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Council” submitted a report on assembly to the head of the Seoul Southern-gu Police Station on April 21, 2009, stating that “The assembly shall be held “the assembly of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Council” from May 2, 2009 to 18:30. However, on April 23 of the same year, Defendant 1, the chairman of the Seoul Southern-gu Police Station, “The reported assembly shall be held for one-year anniversary of candlelight.” However, on the other hand, on April 23 of the same year, Defendant 1 notified that the assembly is prohibited by the provisions of Article 8(2)4 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, since it is obvious that the assembly may directly threaten public peace, such as violence, intimidation, destruction, and fire prevention, by entering the assembly at a time and at a time of meeting.”

Nevertheless, at around 16:55 to 17:45 on May 2, 2009, 50 organizations, such as “○○○○○○○○○○○○ Council,” “△△△△△△△△△ Council,” etc.: (a) around 16:5 to 17:45 on May 2, 2009, in which 80 people were in front of the public room in Seoul Central District, such as “booming out brupt,” three fluor cards, such as “the people’s trend of punishment for the suppression of the murdering of Yongsansan,” “one million candlelight,” and (b) three fluorial cards, such as “the fluor of the German regime,” “the fluor of the Korean government,” “the fluor of the Korean government,” “the fluor of the Korean government,” and “the fluor of the Korean government,” and “the fluor of the right to equality.

Nonindicted 1, the joint representative of “○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Council”, “I succeeded to the candlelight spirit and slelights democracy. At the end of the instant election campaign, I continue to see the spirit of the candlelight and continue to run clelights in the future. I read the resolution for the candlelight slelight slelights. I will read the text of the resolution for the candle slelight slelights. At the police, Nonindicted 2, the joint representative, “I closed the candlelight assembly at the police, but 3,00 people were gathered,” and Nonindicted 2, the joint representative, at the outside of the election of Nonindicted 4, was removed from the name of the public in line with the political regime, and the participants of the instant election in the middle of the election of the Defendant, who continued to live in the middle of the election of the Defendant, and the participants of the election of the Defendant, who continued to run the election of the Defendant.”

Accordingly, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4 conspiredd with Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 1, and Nonindicted 2 to hold an outdoor assembly notified of the prohibition.

1. Statement of Defendant 4 in the third protocol of the trial of the court below;

1. Statement concerning the suspect examination protocol by the prosecution against the defendants 2, 1, and 4

1. Statement concerning Nonindicted 4 and Nonindicted 2 in the protocol of interrogation of suspect by the prosecution

1. Statement concerning Nonindicted 1 and Nonindicted 5 on each protocol of suspect interrogation of the police;

1. Statement on Nonindicted 6’s statement in the police statement

1. Report on the status of information on May 2, 5, copy of the outdoor report on May 2, 2, 5, notification of prohibition of outdoor assembly on May 2, 2, 5, data related to the ○○○○○○-related person, such as the ID and the data on the notice, the public notice, and notice, etc., posted materials, such as the fact of the disturbance, writing materials on the film and strategy, materials on the bulletin, and materials on the notice on the strategy, between May 1 and May 2, 200, each of the materials on the conference prior to the launch of the ○○○○

1. Each description and image of Nonindicted 1’s ○○○○ Kafbook and its photograph, a photograph of the declaration of the establishment of a political party, the CD-type video materials, the motion picture pictures and video CDs launched on April 18, 200, the present status of participation in the assembly, and documentary evidence materials, respectively;

1. Each description of the investigation report (related to the analysis of the car page of ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4: Articles 22(2) and 8(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, and selection of fines, respectively.

2. Handling concurrent crimes;

Defendant 4: The latter part of Article 37 and Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act

3. Detention in a workhouse;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

4. Order of provisional payment;

Defendant 1, Defendant 2, and Defendant 4: Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

Judges Hong Jin Lee (Presiding Judge)