A. In relation to the demonstration on February 22, 2015, the Defendant (definites and misunderstanding of legal principles) included the entrance of the second parking lot and the place where the parking lot was reported within the second parking lot. 2) On March 5, 2015, in relation to the demonstration on March 5, 2015, the Defendant was merely prepared for the meals of the demonstration participants at the time, and it was entirely unpredicted that the demonstration was conducted by carrying out the demonstration by operating on the road using a knife, etc. with a flick card

B. The sentence of the lower court (a fine of one million won) is deemed to be too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. In light of the purport of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on February 22, 2015, the issue of whether an outdoor assembly or demonstration held in reality constitutes “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported purpose, date, time, place, method, etc.” under Article 16(4)3 of the same Act shall be determined by whether the assembly or demonstration clearly deviates from the scope expected by the report, and it is extremely difficult to achieve the purpose of the report system. In determining it, the freedom of assembly or demonstration is a citizen’s fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution; the organizer of the assembly, etc., is unable to report all the detailed matters of the method of the assembly or demonstration without fail, in mind, if it is inevitable to change the method in the process of the assembly or demonstration, and it shall be determined lawfully and comprehensively by comparing the reported contents and the actual situation, and by comparing it with the evidence of this case (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Do1679, Mar. 19, 2010).