2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the acquittal portion of the lower judgment.

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below affirmed the judgment below which acquitted the Defendant on the ground that Article 24 subparag. 5, Article 20(2), subparag. 5, and Article 16(4)2, and subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) does not constitute a dispersion order under Article 20 subparag. 5, Article 20(2), subparag. 5, and Article 16(4)2 and subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act apply to the following facts: “The Defendant brought a public prosecution by applying the provisions of Articles 20 subparag. 5, subparag. 5, and 16(4)2, and Article 30 of the Criminal Act to the facts charged: “The assembly of this case does not constitute a dispersion order under Articles 20(1)5 and subparag. 16(4)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.”

B. (1) First, we examine whether the assembly of this case clearly deviates from the scope of the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. of the report under Article 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

(A) Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration on the report, etc. of an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, organizer, etc., the organization and the number of persons scheduled to participate in the assembly or demonstration, and the method thereof to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration, and Article 16(4)3 of the same Act provides that the organizer of the assembly or demonstration shall submit a report stating the purpose, date,