When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted into one day.

In order to order the provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine.

Of the facts charged of this case, the charge of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to non-compliance with the dispersion Order is not guilty.

1. Progress of conflict between ○○ Heavy Industries and Labor;

The ○○ Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “○○ Heavy Industries”) employs 1,378 employees (including 94 employees as of November 10, 201, and 808 employees, including 94 employees,) in the △△△△△ Group, and manufactures special vessels, such as naval vessels and guard boats, and designates them as major defense contractors of the Republic of Korea from May 6, 1974.

○○ Heavy Industries, starting from the second half of 2008, continued to reduce human resources for business reasons, reported the plan to adjust human resources for business reasons to the Labor Office on December 15, 2010, notified it to the National Metal Workers’ Union ○ Heavy Industries Branch (hereinafter “Labor”). On January 13, 201, notified the workers of the pre-announcement of dismissal, and dismissed 170 workers on February 14, 201.

Accordingly, from June 9, 2010 to December 17, 2010, labor union members repeated the partial and full-time strike over 88 times. From December 20, 2010, labor union members asserted "recept removal" and joined a indefinite full-time strike. From December 28, 2010, labor union members began to work for the intra-company living space of the union members. From January 6, 2011, the National Democratic Labor Union Federation (hereinafter "Private Labor Union") members of the Busan Central Labor Union Head Office 3 were 85 members, and labor union members were 10 members of the company's daily request for removal from office and the measures for removal from office on February 14, 2011 were rejected, and labor union members were 20 members of the company, but they continued to withdraw from office and non-indicted 10 members of the company and were 30 members of the company and were 5 members of the company's final dismissal.

2. Progress of the so-called “1-5 Desired bus”;

기획자인 공소외 5는 인터넷 다음(Daum) 카페인 일명 “☆☆☆☆ ☆☆ ☆☆☆☆☆ 네트워크(이하 ‘☆☆☆’)”에 ○○중공업 ▽▽조선소 85호 크레인을 점거농성중인 위 공소외 3을 지지하기 위하여 전국에서 버스를 타고 부산에서 모여 집회를 열고 85호 크레인으로 행진하는 등 ○○중공업 노사 문제를 이슈화하는 소위 ‘희망버스’를 개최하자는 제안을 하였고, 이에 따라 5차례에 걸쳐 부산과 서울에서 집회·시위가 개최되었다.

On June 11, 201, from around 23:00 on June 11, 201 to 14:00 on the following day, the primary bus attended and proceeded with a total of 700 persons in front and inside the front of the △△△△△ Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “▽△△△△△”) and inside the company.

On July 9, 201, from around 18:00 to 15:30 on the following day, the second desired bus was attended by 7,000 persons in front of the Seocho-dong Busan District, Busan District, and the △△△△△△△△△△.

On July 30, 201, from around 18:00 to around 09:00 on the following day, the third desired bus attended 2,200 persons in the vicinity of the Busan Metropolitan City Police Agency, the road in front of the waterside park in the vicinity of the △△△ Seo-gu, Busan Metropolitan City.

On August 28, 201, from around 14:00 on August 28, 201 to 11:25 the following day, the fourth desired bus attended 3,500 persons in Jongno-gu Seoul Seo-dong, Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and its Japanese and independent park.

5차 희망버스는 2011. 10. 8. 19:00경부터 다음날 10:50경까지 부산 중구 남포동 ◎◎프라자 앞 도로, 같은 동 ◁◁백화점 앞 도로, 부산역 광장에서 2,000여명이 참석하여 진행되었다.

3. Criminal facts of the defendant;

around May 201, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, and Nonindicted 8, etc. were to act as the general planning (Nonindicted 5), the head of the organization (Nonindicted 9), the liaison and mobilization of the National Metal Trade Union (Nonindicted 6), the person in charge of press response (Nonindicted 7), the legal response officer (Nonindicted 8), etc.: (a) recruit participants from a national unit through a press conference, Internet car page, SNS (twitter, etc.; and (b) have moved to the Busan city where the ○○ Heavy Industries is located with buses, etc., and thereafter organized the so-called Desired Bus Planning Group (hereinafter referred to as the “Planning”) for the purpose of carrying out the assembly claiming the support of occupied agriculture and the withdrawal of layoff of the ○ Heavy Industries, and (c) have been holding the first bus at the Busan Young-do on June 12, 2011.

A. Regarding the first desired bus (from June 11, 201 to June 12, 201)

1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the participation in prohibited night demonstrations) and general traffic obstruction

According to the public notice of Nonindicted 5 and other desired bus planning group, the number of 700 participants who are gathered from June 12, 201 to 01:25 the next day from June 12, 201, from around 00:17 to the next day from around 01:25, Busan Young-do 5, △△△△-dong moved along the lane prior to the direction of progress in the intersection of △△△△△△, and puts up one kilometer from the day before the direction of the operation.

At this time, the Defendant attended the above demonstration and participated in the night demonstration prohibited by putting the participants in the demonstration together with others, and interfered with the traffic by causing them to pass on the land in collusion with the participants.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence)

On June 12, 201, around 01:25, 500 participants of a demonstration refused to comply with the dispersion order before the aforementioned △△△△△ Group, and during which the participants were deaf, they installed containers, etc. at all entrances, such as the door, etc., and placed security guards, making it difficult to enter the scene of 85 members inside the ▽▽△△△△△ Group, which led to the participation of the participants in the demonstration, 30 out of the wall the number of the members of the ○○ Industries Branch, in the front of the embal husium between the door of the ○○ Industries, waiting to go, from the door of the ○○ Industries, was 14:0 on the following day after the 14:0 of the day after the day when the ○○ Industries Branch, which was inside the ship’s house, ○○ Industrial Group, which was in excess of or going beyond the fence, went into the wall without permission.

At this time, with the participants of the Defendant, the victim invadedd into the ▽△△△ Group through the 500 participants of the demonstration, and thereby, the Defendant intruded on the building owned by the victim corporation ○○ Heavy Industries, jointly with the participants of the demonstration.

B. Regarding the second desired bus (from July 9, 201 to July 10, 201)

피고인은 공소외 5 등 희망버스 기획단의 공지에 따라 모인 참가자 7,000여명과 함께 2011. 7. 9. 21:20경부터 22:50경까지 부산 동구 초량동 부산역 광장을 출발하여 목적지인 ○○중공업 85호 크레인으로 가기 위하여 남포동 소재 ◁◁백화점 앞을 지나 영도대교를 거쳐 영도구 △△동 소재 □□의원 앞 노상까지 약 4.2킬로미터 구간을 진행방향 전 차로를 차지하고 행진하여 육로를 불통하게 하는 방법으로 교통을 방해하였다.

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. An investigation report (in relation to the primary desired bus, attaching a site photograph), an investigation report (in relation to the primary desired bus, counting the distance from the intersection to the ○○ Heavy Industries), an investigation report (in relation to the primary desired bus, calculating the distance from the intersection to the intersection of △△ Heavy Industries), an investigation report (in relation to the secondary desired bus event, counting the distance from the Busan Young-gu to the △△△dong-dong), an investigation report (in relation to the secondary desired bus event, attaching an on-site documentary evidence), and an investigation report (in relation to the secondary desired bus event, attaching a site photograph);

Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (joint residence intrusion), Article 185 and Article 30 of the Criminal Act (general traffic obstruction), Article 23 subparag. 3 and Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the point of participation in night demonstration) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the selection of each fine.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Article 37 (former part), Article 38 (1) 2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Order of provisional payment;

Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

When punishing an assembly or demonstration as a interference with general traffic, the scope shall be limited in cases where the freedom of assembly or demonstration guaranteed by the Constitution is caused so that it does not infringe on freedom of assembly, and the simple participant in an assembly or demonstration shall not be punished as a interference with general traffic, and traffic interference incidental to an assembly or demonstration shall not be punished as an interference with general traffic.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion that the scope of punishment should be limited

1) All citizens are guaranteed the freedom of assembly or demonstration pursuant to Article 21(1) of the Constitution, but in particular, an assembly or demonstration on the road may conflict with the public interest, such as the right to traffic and smooth traffic flow. In such a case, it is necessary to ensure to the maximum extent possible freedom of assembly or demonstration, and at the same time, to ensure adequate balance so as not to infringe on the public traffic rights and public order including smooth traffic flow. Therefore, in a case where an assembly or demonstration is held on the road after completing lawful reports, the traffic of the road may be restricted to any extent. Thus, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or was made differently from the reported contents, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that the interference with general traffic as provided in Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established, even if the assembly or demonstration was obstructed, unless there is a substantial deviation from the reported scope, or if it substantially makes it impossible or considerably impossible to obstruct traffic by seriously violating the conditions as provided in Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the demonstration of this case is not deemed to be within the scope recognized by the freedom of assembly and demonstration, in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, namely, the participants of the demonstration reached 700 persons (the first desired bus), 7,000 persons (the second desired bus), the participants of the demonstration committed a driving ahead of the road or the lane, and the participants of the demonstration occupied a considerable portion of the front lane or lane of the road, and the vehicle occupied by the participants of the demonstration was unable to communicate for a considerable period of time or significantly difficult to communicate with the traffic for a considerable period of time due to the participation of the participants of the demonstration.

General traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime that the traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic obstruction is not to be realized. If a group of assemblies is convened by occupying the roadway, such as the above recognized facts, it is reasonable to deem that the traffic in the daily road at the assembly site has actually been obstructed or specific danger has occurred. This does not change even if the road near the assembly site was partially controlled by the police.

In addition, while recognizing the circumstances that the vehicle traffic has a significant difficulty, the defendant participated in the demonstration of this case and interfered with the traffic by occupying the road in order or by combining implied intentions with other participants in the demonstration of this case, and thus, it is recognized that there is a conspiracy with other participants in the demonstration of this case.

B. As to the assertion that an act accompanied by a imprudent accompanying act is an act

The relevant provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on the crime of interference with general traffic and the crime of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act differ from the elements of a crime and legal interest. The general and typical acts of interference with traffic do not entail the establishment of a crime of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the act of interference with traffic do not constitute a minor act that is not considered separately compared with the crime of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Thus, the act of interference with traffic by the participants of assembly and demonstration cannot be deemed to constitute

(a) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

No one shall conduct any demonstration before sunrise or after sunset, and a report shall be made in advance to hold an assembly, and any illegal demonstration or assembly shall be voluntarily withdrawn by the chief of the competent police station upon receipt of a request for voluntary dispersion from the chief of the competent police station, and when he/she receives an order for voluntary dispersion, he/she shall dissolve it without delay

At around 00:40 on June 12, 201, Nonindicted Party 1 requested voluntary dispersion on 13 occasions during the period from 02:08 to 02:08, from that time, on the grounds that Nonindicted Party 1 was delegated by the head of the same police station for the same police station, at around 0:40 on June 12, 201, Nonindicted Party 1 requested voluntary dispersion on the grounds that Nonindicted Party 5, Young-gu, Busan Metropolitan City was a night demonstration, which

However, participants of the demonstration including the Defendant did not comply with the dispersion order.

(b) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

Anyone shall, upon receiving a request from the chief of the competent police station for voluntary dispersion of an illegal demonstration or assembly, and when he/she receives an order for voluntary dispersion due to non-compliance therewith, dissolve it without delay.

Nevertheless, the participants of the assembly, including the Defendant, continued to hold an assembly from July 9, 201 to 15:30 of the following day from July 22:50, 201, by occupying an exclusive lane in front of △△ Dong-dong, △△dong, and holding out relief.

Non-Indicted 2 requested voluntary dispersion at around 23:05 on the same day on the ground that Non-Indicted 2 was an unreported assembly, and ordered dispersion at around 23:16 on three occasions from the beginning of the order of voluntary dispersion until 00:26 on the following day.

However, the participants of the demonstration including the Defendant did not comply with the dispersion order.

2. Determination

A. The violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order on June 12, 2011

Even in accordance with the investigation report (Attachment of Materials regarding Down Bus Demonstration Order), a broadcast that was from 00:40 on June 12, 201 to 02:08 on the same day from 00:40 on the date stated in the facts charged of the instant case is not more than 13 times, but more than 9 times, and the broadcast content is known to the Youngdo Police Station, the number of participants, and several minutes are conducting an illegal assembly demonstration for which no night report has been reported. It appears that it constitutes a request for dissolution, not a dispersion order, in the form of the phrase.

Meanwhile, at around 22:50 on June 11, 201 and 22:50 on the same day as the above investigation report: (a) the assembly demonstration is permitted in principle pursuant to the purport of the Constitutional Court’s decision [2010Hun-Ga2, 2012Hun-Ga13(merged)], taking full account of the following: (b) there is no evidence to deem that the assembly or demonstration resulted in a direct danger to others’ legal interests or public safety and order at the time of the dispersion order, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is a legitimate ground for punishment for the violation of the law, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B. The violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order on July 9, 2011

Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that with respect to an assembly or demonstration falling under any of the following subparagraphs, the chief of the competent police station may demand voluntary dispersion within a considerable period of time, and if he/she does not comply therewith, he/she may order dispersion. Article 20(2) of the Act provides that all participants shall immediately dissolve when the assembly or demonstration has been ordered to do so under paragraph (1). In light of the interpretation of the relevant provision, when the chief of the competent police station issues an order of dispersion, he/she shall give specific notice as to whether the cause for dissolution falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 20(1) of the Act. Therefore, in cases where the chief of the competent police station did not give specific notice of the cause for dissolution while issuing an order of dispersion, or where he/she issues an order of dispersion with the notice of a justifiable reason, even if he/she did not comply with such order of dispersion (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do14137, Mar. 13, 2014).

I will look at the 23:05 on July 9, 201, according to the investigation report (Attachment to the order of dissolution related to the second bus demonstration), and Non-Indicted 2 will be subject to a voluntary dispersion order with the content that "I will move to a safe place and make every effort to protect the safety of the citizens. I will be able to make every effort from the 23:16th of the same day to prevent various participants from spreading. Various illegal activities will not be able to pay various safety risks to the vehicle and citizens, and if our police will continue to commit any illegal activities, I will be able to immediately dissolve or dissolve the road with the same order of dissolution as "I will not immediately make every 3:5:00 of the illegal acts to leave the 2:00s on the 3rd of the Seoul Special Police Agency." It will be 1:5:00 on the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3rd of the 2nd of the 2nd of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3th of the 3th of the 2nd of the 3th of the s.

According to the above facts, it is evident that the reason for dissolution at the time of the dispersion order in this case does not specifically notify which falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (in particular, at the time of the voluntary dispersion order, the demand for dispersion was made for reasons of non-reported assemblies, but does not seem to constitute a cause for dissolution at the time of the first or third dispersion order).

Therefore, even if the defendant did not comply with the lawful dispersion order as above, it cannot be deemed that he violated Article 20(2) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure

Judges Lee Jong-chul