However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for four years for Defendant 1, and for three years for Defendant 2, from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

To Defendant 1, 160 hours and 120 hours of community service shall be ordered respectively to Defendant 2.

Of the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendants, each of the Defendants is acquitted as to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act following the failure to comply with each dispersion order on July 24, 2014.

If Defendant 1 among the facts charged in the instant case against Defendant 1, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 6, Nonindicted 7, Nonindicted 8, Nonindicted 9, Nonindicted 10, Nonindicted 11, Nonindicted 12, Nonindicted 13, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 15, Nonindicted 16, Nonindicted 17, Nonindicted 18, Nonindicted 20, Nonindicted 21, Nonindicted 22, Nonindicted 23, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 29, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 31, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 36, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 38, Nonindicted 39, Nonindicted 41, Nonindicted 42, Nonindicted 43, Nonindicted 444, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 5, and Nonindicted 1’s career experience in the public bus in front of Seoul, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 14, Nonindicted 37, Nonindicted 45, Nonindicted 547, and Nonindicted 5.

"2015 Gohap690"

1. Status of the Defendants

The Defendants are full-time operating members of the Council for Countermeasures against the People of the Sewol ferry (hereinafter referred to as the “Council for Countermeasures against the People of the Republic of Korea”), and Defendant 1 are members of the Council for Countermeasures against the People of the Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the “Council for Countermeasures against the Victims”) of the Council for Countermeasures against the Victims of the Sewol ferry and the Council for Investigation into the Truth of the Victims of the April 16 Sewol ferry and for the Construction of Safety Society (hereinafter referred to as the “Council for April 16”), who are joint operating members of the Council for Countermeasures against the Victims of the Sewol ferry (hereinafter referred to as the “Council for Countermeasures against the People of the Republic of Korea”). Defendant 2 is the Joint operating members of the Council for Countermeasures against the Victims of the Republic of Korea

2. Progressing from holding an illegal assembly, which was held by the National Countermeasure Committee, 2014;

On April 16, 2014, after the sinking of the Sewol ferry on the sea of Jindo-do, 500 non-governmental organizations planned to hold the National Assembly at the 25th floor of Jung-gu, Seoul, to take measures to prevent the rapid rescue and truth of the missing on the 20th floor, and to take measures to prevent the outbreak of the disaster, etc., and to organize the National Assembly, which is a national countermeasure organization. 618 non-governmental organizations, including the two participating parties, the Man-ju Human Rights Council, the National Teachers' Union, and the 10th National Assembly of Jindo-gu, Seoul, 201, planned to take measures to “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly,” and “the National Assembly,” “the National Assembly, 10000 p.

Since then, the National Countermeasure Committee led to an unreported assembly or demonstration under the name of the Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Cheongcheon-dong, Jongno-gu Incheon Metropolitan City Cheongcheon-gu Cheongcheon-gu, Seoul Cheongmun-gu, "The Committee on Countermeasures against Family of Victims of the Victims of the Sewol ferry, the Victims of the Victims of the Victims of the Sewol ferry, the Missing/Devited Family Countermeasures Committee, and the members belonging to the National Countermeasures Committee, who attended the National Countermeasures Committee, such as "the candlelight behavior against the people of the Republic of Korea", "4/16 Special Act", "the National Assembly for the People of the Republic of Korea", and "the 100th Assembly for the Sewol Ferry."

3. The progress of illegal violent assemblies relating to the trend of Sewol ferry from April to May 5, 2015

The National Countermeasure Council and the April 16 Family Council have continuously held illegal assemblies and demonstrationss, such as the destruction of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Fostering of the Sewol Ferry from March 30, 2015, and the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act on the Protection of the Sewol Ferry under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Oceans and Fisheries, such as the agricultural nature of the luminous plaza and the occupation of roads in major urban areas at the weekends, and the unfolding attempts of the Ministry of Oceans

The progress of illegal assemblies related to the Sewol ferry from March 30, 2015 is as follows:

On March 30, 2015, the Family Council of the April 16, 2015 referred to as "the 416-hour Council for the Declaration of Agriculturality", and on March 30, 2015, more than 50 bereaved family members, including two bereaved family members, were arrested in a flagrant act suspected of obstructing the performance of official duties, and on March 31, 2015, a maximum number of persons, including 2 bereaved family members, continued to grow in the luxan square of the Magdaemunmun-gu, which had been released in front of the Ministry of Agriculture and Forestry, from March 31, 2015 to the date of prosecution.

On April 2, 2015, the number of bereaved family members 52 and April 4, 2015, 19 bereaved family members were each engaged in search and seizure, and 1,000 members, including 20 members of bereaved family members, were pre-announceed for the strike of the Government of the Republic of Korea. From April 4, 2015 to May 5, 2015, a group of 1,000 members, held an event “4/16 Family Council Dominced by April 16 Family Council” and held a reorganization meeting by 2,200 members, who were gathered from the luminous square.

On April 6, 2015, some of the bereaved families and the National Countermeasure Committee had increased the strength of the war in the year, such as requesting a meeting of the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries by 130 bereaved families to hold an interview with the Minister of Oceans and Fisheries, and the fact that eight of them were released after being arrested in the act of entering the government-type building in Sejong City as "a structure intrusion".

On April 7, 2015, Defendant 1, a co-chairperson of the National Countermeasure Committee, opened a press conference and demanded the destruction of the Enforcement Decree of the Special Act, and declared the period from April 11, 2015 to April 19, 2015. On April 17:30, 2015, Defendant 1, a co-chairperson of the National Countermeasure Committee, held “The National Assembly for the Round of the Enforcement Decree, the Sewol Ferry,” and agreed that Defendant 1 would go in the direction of the audience after the assembly. On April 11, 2015, Defendant 1, a co-chairperson of the National Countermeasure Committee, was found to be in a disorderly state due to violence, such as major road occupation, special obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and was found to have been illegally committed on April 1, 2015 and April 18, 2015.

4. Common criminal facts committed by the Defendants

(a) An assembly on July 24, 2014, March 100;

1) An act deviating from the scope of report

The organizer of an assembly or demonstration shall not engage in any activity clearly deviating from the scope of the reported purpose, date, time, place, method, etc.

From July 24, 2014 to 23:59, the Defendants, the Joint Operation Chairperson of the National Countermeasure Council, reported an outdoor assembly or demonstration under the name of “the national progress in the enactment of the Special Act on the Sewol Ferry Part-of-Family Participation” and reported that 8,000 persons were to enter Seoul S square ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 3 Ro-ro ? ? Ro-ro ? ? ? 3 Ro-ro ? Ro-ri-ri ? 3 Ro-si ? Ro-ri-si ? 5 lanes in the reverse direction : From 22:30 on the same day to 20: 5,00, and 1:00 on the front of the two-lane building, and the President continued to open the two-lane road in front of the Seoul Special Act on the Preparation of the 2nd Ethical Building at the front of the 124th century in front of the Korean Assembly.”

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to commit an act clearly deviating from the date, time, place, and method of the assembly reported as the organizer of the assembly.

ii)general traffic obstruction;

On July 24, 2014, at around 20:30, the Defendants organized a three-month culture system that “I believe I would like to be enacted a three-month special law that I would like to be the surviving family member of I would like to be,” but there is no such example. However, the three-month system of our country should not be trusted. We need to create a special law. We do not have the right to move our judicial system. We need not be responsible for the Cheongdaedae. We need to do so. It is the broad door : The 20th century election campaign is the broad door : from around 133 to 20,00, the 200 would be the so-called the so-called “I would like to 20,000 the so-called the so-called the so-called “I would like to 20,000 the so-called the so-called “I would like to 20,000 the so-called 25th square.”

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the participants in the above assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.

(b) Action taken to exercise overall control over the destruction of Presidential Decree and the demands for mutual assistance on April 11, 2015;

1) The host of an unreported assembly or demonstration

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report on it to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

피고인들은 2015. 4. 11. 16:40경 ~ 19:00경 서울 종로구에 있는 광화문 광장에서 4ㆍ16 가족협의회 공소외 134 집행위원장의 사회로 4ㆍ16 연대 회원, 세월호 유가족 등 2,500여 명 참석 하에 ‘대통령령 폐기와 세월호 인양 촉구 총력 행동’ 문화제를 주최한 다음, 국민대책회의 공동운영위원장 공소외 135의 “지금은 추모할 때가 아니고 행동할 때이다. 4. 16.때 아무것도 하지 않았던 대통령이 이번 4. 16.때 외국 나간다고 한다. 이게 대통령입니까? 말끝마다 거짓말인 정부 썩을 대로 썩은 정부 오늘 만나러 가야 하지 않겠습니까? 오늘은 행동주간 첫 번째 날입니다. 지금 청와대로 같이 가주십시오”라는 선동에 따라 같은 날 19:05경 ~ 20:00경 참가자 2,500여 명과 함께 ‘세월호를 인양하라. 정부 시행령 폐기하라’는 피켓팅과 같은 내용의 구호를 제창하면서 서울 종로구에 있는 세종로 소공원 앞 세종대로 5개 차로 전 차로를 무단으로 점거한 채 광화문 광장 북쪽으로 행진하다가 위 세종로 소공원 앞에서 경찰 안전 펜스에 의해 차단되자 차로를 점거한 채 집회를 계속하였고, 같은 날 21:05경 사회를 보고 있던 피고인 2의 “저희가 저 앞 쪽 길을 뚫어 보려고 굉장히 애를 많이 썼는데요. 조금은 힘이 딸립니다. 그러나 아까도 말씀드렸던 것처럼 길은 많고 우리가 함께 해야 될 시민들도 많이 있는 것 같습니다. 시민 여러분 가족들을 따라서 함께 이동하도록 하겠습니다”라는 선동 발언에 따라 집회 참가자 2,200여 명은 피고인 2가 선도하는 방송 차량을 선두로 20:10경 세종로R(세종문화회관 앞 5개 차로 점거) → 20:20경 종로1가R(종로대로 진행 방향 4개 차로 점거) → 20:31경 종로2가R(서울 YMCA 앞부터 양 방향 8개 차로 점거) → 을지로2가R, 을지로1가R, 서울 광장 → 21:02경 세종로R(동서남북 전 방향 소통 불가) → 21:16경 역사박물관 앞(교보빌딩 앞 5개 차로 점거)까지 미신고 행진을 하였고, 집회 참가자 1,500여 명은 청와대 방면으로 계속 진출하려다가 광화문 광장 북측 및 역사박물관 앞 5개 전 차로를 점거하고 ‘세월호를 인양하라. 정부 시행령 폐기하라’는 구호를 제창하고 같은 내용의 피켓팅을 하면서 4. 12. 00:40경까지 집회를 계속한 후, 피고인 1이 “오늘 좀 아쉽죠? 우리가 목표로 한 데까지 못 갔죠?... 그런데 오늘 싸움은 시작이죠. 정말 싸워야 될 때가 언제 있습니까? 다음 주에 또 싸워야 되지 않아요? 4월 18일날은 정말 싸울 수 있도록 합시다... 사실 급조된 면이 없지 않습니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 오늘 잘 싸웠습니다. 오랜만에 이렇게 싸웠던 것 같습니다. 유가족과 시민들이 하면 이렇게 할 수 있다는 자신감 우리 오늘 확보한 것 같습니다. 다음에는 더 많은 사람이 모여서 정말 청와대까지 갈 수 있도록 4월 18일 청와대 인간띠잇기 해야겠죠?... 다음 주 4월 16일, 4월 18일 또 더 큰 힘으로 싸웠으면 좋겠습니다”라고 마무리 발언하고, 피고인 2가 “여러분들 가족들이 앞에서 보시니까 진짜 너무나 잘 싸우시죠... 정말로 고생 많으셨습니다. 어 사실 마음만 같으면요. 저 청와대로 한 번 더 뚫고 가고 싶은데 요즘 다들 많이들 못 드셨나봐요. 체력들이 좀 많이 딸리는 것 같습니다... 자 여러분들 세끼 식사 꼬박꼬박 하시고, 잠 푹 주무시고 그래서 4월 16일날은 몸을 무지하게 튼튼하게 해서 오셔야 되는 거 다 아시죠? 그리고 나서 어떻게 해야 됩니까 가능하면 삼계탕도 드시고, 홍삼도 드시고, 더 힘을 바짝바짝 내서 4월 18일날 이 자리에 우리가 함께 모여서 뚫고 가야 되지 않겠습니까”라고 마무리 발언을 한 후 해산하였다.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration which was not reported to the chief of the competent police station.

2) Failure to comply with the dispersion order

On April 11, 2015, from around 19:05 to 20:00 other assemblies, the Defendants were requested to make voluntary dispersion at around 19:05 on the same day on the grounds that there was a direct and obvious danger to others’ legal interests or public safety and order by occupying five lanes as three-lanes in front of the small park as three-lanes, and attempting to drive toward North Korea to the luminous square, and thus, caused direct and obvious danger to others’ legal interests or public safety and order.

However, although the participants, including the Defendants, failed to comply with the request for voluntary dispersion and the above director of the security division at around 19:08 on the same day, the second dispersion order at around 19:15 on the same day, the third dispersion order at around 19:2 on the same day, the fourth dispersion order at around 19:37 on the same day, and the fourth dispersion order at around 19:53 on the same day, the Defendants did not immediately dissolve.

The Defendants continued to move into the Cheong-gu and Cheong-gu with 2,200 participants on the same day from around 20:05 to April 12, 12, 200, with the same parallel route as described in paragraph (1) above, and continued to move into the Cheong-gu and Cheong-gu with five lanes in front of the Gin language square and the historical museum on April 11: 21:02; the chief of the guard station around 21:02 at around 21:18 of the same day; the 7th dispersion order at around 21:18 of the same day; the 8th dispersion order at around 22:49 of the same day; the 9th dispersion order at around 23:45 of the same day; and the 10th dispersion order at around 23:45 of the same day, respectively, the Defendants did not dissolve without delay.

Accordingly, the Defendants refused to comply with the legitimate dispersion order by the chief of the police station.

iii)general traffic obstruction;

At around 19:05 from around 20:00 to around 20:00 on April 11, 2015, Defendants occupied five lanes in front of the Sejong Culture Center in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul. On the same day, around 20:05 to 00:40 on April 12, 201, the Defendants occupied 1,50 to 2,200 participants in the assembly, and obstructed the traffic of vehicles by occupying three lanes, etc.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the participants in the above assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.

4) Special obstruction of performance

The defendants leading 2,200 participants to attend an assembly as described in paragraph 1 above, and occupy five lanes prior to the building in Jongno-gu Seoul through the 20th of April 11 to 200 as the end, and continuously 21:30 of the same day, the chief of the situation office and the participants are required to keep the police gate installed on the e-mail square in the front of the front of the building in Jongno-gu by requesting the police officers to participate in the assembly. At the same time, it is difficult for the defendants 2 to keep the police gate installed on the e-mail of the e-mail in front of the front of the election, and to keep the front of the election at the front of the election. However, it is difficult for the police officers to keep the front of the election at the front of the election, so long as it is difficult for men to keep the front of the election at the time.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with 2,200 participants in the assembly on name and interfered with the legitimate performance of police officers' duties by collective force.

(c) acting on April 16, 2015 by the people of the Republic of Korea for one year following the Staff of the Sewol ferry;

1) Promotion of an assembly or demonstration not reported

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report on it to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

피고인들은 2015. 4. 16. 19:00경 ~ 21:10경 서울 중구에 있는 서울 광장에서 4ㆍ16 가족협의회 공소외 134 집행위원장의 사회로 4ㆍ16 연대 회원, 세월호 유가족 등 10,000여 명 참석 하에 ‘세월호 참사 1년 범국민 추모 행동’ 추모제를 주최하면서 피고인 1은 모두 발언을 통해 “오늘 단식 풀려고 합니다. 지금은 단식하고 앉아 있을 때가 아니라 싸워야 할 때입니다... 이 나라에는 대통령이 있습니까? 이 나라에는 정부가 있습니까? 이 나라에는 정치가 있습니까? 이게 국가입니까?... 대통령은 해외로 도망갔습니다. 이 대통령 다시는 이 땅에 발 디디지 못하도록 우리가 싸워야 할 때입니다. 피해자들이 울고 싶을 때 울 수 없게 만드는 대통령, 피해자들이 슬퍼할 권리조차 박탈하는 대통령, 그건 이 나라 대통령이 아닙니다. 싸웁시다. 유가족과 함께 싸웁시다. 열흘 굶은 저도 여러분과 함께 싸우겠습니다. 오늘도 싸우고 내일도 싸우고 모레도 싸우고 될 때까지 진실 규명될 때까지 세월호 인양할 때까지 싸우고 또 싸워서 이 나라 제발 안전하게 만들자고 호소 드립니다”라고 선동 발언을 한 다음, 집회 참가자들 10,000여 명과 함께 ‘정부의 특별법 시행령 당장 폐기하라, 세월호를 온전히 인양하라, 공소외인은 퇴진하라’는 피켓팅과 같은 내용의 구호를 제창하면서 청와대 방면으로 진출하기 위해 태평로 10차로 전 차로를 점거한 채 미신고 행진하면서 서울 프레스센터 및 서울시의회 앞에 설치된 경찰 무인 폴리스라인을 손상하였다. 그 후 서울 중구에 있는 파이낸스 빌딩 앞에서 경찰 차벽 등에 의해 행진이 차단되자, 피고인들을 포함한 집회 참가자 7,000여 명은 같은 날 21:35경부터 청계남로를 이용하여 광교R → 청계2가R → 청계3가R → 종로3가R 방향으로 미신고 행진을 계속하였다. 그 후 같은 날 22:05경 위 집회 참가자 중 2,000여 명은 종로3가R에서 종로2가에 있는 서울 YMCA 앞 도로에 이르기까지 양 방향 8개 차로 전 차로를 점거하고 미신고 행진을 하였고, 같은 날 22:25경 집회 참가자가 6,000여 명으로 증가한 가운데 피고인 2의 사회로 ‘공소외인은 물러가라. 세월호를 인양하라. 시행령을 폐기하라. 진실을 밝혀내자’라고 구호를 제창하는 등 위 서울 YMCA 앞 8개 차로 전 차로를 점거한 채 같은 날 23:15경까지 집회를 계속하였다. 그리고 같은 날 23:30경 피고인 2가 “(종로경찰서 경비과장이) 자 다시 짖기 시작해서 떠들고 있는데, 다 같이 함께 야유의 함성 시작. 저희가 오늘 이 자리에 있는데요. 오늘은 광화문을 거치지 않고 바로 가야 될 것 같습니다. 가족분들이 지금 수십 명이 경복궁 앞에서 여러분들을 기다리고 계십니다. 경복궁 앞으로 잠시 후에 행진을 다시 시작하려고 합니다. 경복궁을 지나서 어디로요? (네 청와대요) 네 갈 수 있는 만큼 갑시다. 오늘, 여러분 약속해 주십시오. 모두 함께 가실거죠? 네 그 약속을 믿고 가겠습니다. 가족분들이 나가실 수 있도록 길을 열어주십시오‘라고 선동 발언을 하자 피고인 1은 유족들과 함께 경복궁을 향해 미신고 행진을 시작하고, 다른 집회 참가자 3,000여 명은 서울 YMCA 앞에서 북인사마당 방향으로, 700여 명은 국세청에서 일본대사관 방면으로, 300여 명은 조계사 앞 템플스테이 골목길 등으로 각각 이동하면서 ‘공소외인은 물러가라’고 구호를 제창하면서 청와대 방면으로의 진출을 기도하는 등 같은 해 4. 17. 04:00경까지 서울 종로구 안국동, 광화문 광장, 광화문 누각 주변에서 산발적으로 집회를 계속하였다.

In addition, at the same time, 70 to 220 participants of an assembly, including the bereaved family members of the Sewol ferry, were convened on April 16 of the same year at around 22:40 of the same year to April 18:22:20 of the same year at around 22:40 of the same year, and at around 22:20 of the Gwangjin-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, “the punishment for the responsible person” was created.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration which was not reported to the chief of the competent police station.

2) Failure to comply with the dispersion order

From around 22:05 to 23:30 on April 16, 2015, Defendants were requested to voluntarily dissolve on the same day on the grounds of the expenses of the police station and the failure to report from the head of the police station around 22:18 on the same day, on the grounds that the Defendants, at around 22:00 other participants at other assemblies, occupied the eight-lanes prior to the two-lanes in Seoul Jongno-ro 2, Seoul YCA, which were located in Jongno-gu Seoul, by holding an unreported assembly, thereby causing a direct and apparent danger to others’ legal interests or public safety and order.

However, although the participants, including the Defendants, failed to comply with the request for voluntary dispersion, and the chief of the last police station guard around 22:21 on the same day, the first dispersion order around 22:44 on the same day, the second dispersion order around 22:57 on the same day, the third dispersion order around 22:57 on the same day, and the fourth dispersion order around 23:10 on the same day, the Defendants did not immediately dissolve.

Accordingly, the Defendants refused to comply with the legitimate dispersion order by the chief of the police station.

iii)general traffic obstruction;

The Defendants, along with the 10,000 participants in the assembly, occupied the ten lanes in front of the Pakistan building located in Jung-gu, Seoul at around 21:10 on April 16, 2015 to 21:35 on April 16, 2015, and occupied the 6,000 participants in the assembly at around 22:05 to 23:30 on the same day, and obstructed the traffic of vehicles by occupying the eight lanes in front of the YMCA.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the participants in the above assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.

4) Special obstruction of performance

At around 21:10 on April 16, 2015, Defendants: (a) moved 10,000 broadcasting vehicles in the front line of the demonstration zone, leading 10,000 air vehicles from the front line of the assembly; (b) attempted to enter the front line of 10 lanes in the front line of the assembly; and (c) obstructed by the police barriers; (d) on the same day, the participants in the name unrest assemblies at the front line of the demonstration were under the influence of the majority, on the same day at around 21:16, the participants were under the influence of the public, who were installed in the front line of the Seoul Metropolitan Government Government Office’s private house and the Seoul Council’s building, and damaged the luxane in the front line of the police bus with the front line of the police bus installed in the front line of the police road.

From 22:25 on the same day, 6,00 people who participated in the assembly and demonstration were able to move to the police boomed by Defendant 2’s past route as in Seoul YMCA, and the chief of Non-Party 71’s office in the situation where Defendant 2’s above instigates remarks and Defendant 2’s instructions are the same. At present, I will be waiting for various (bereaved family members) moving to the police boom with their own will. From this point of view, I will not operate these vehicles. From this point of view, I will not move from this point of view to the direction of the police force of the participants in the assembly and demonstration, and I will not move from this point of view to the direction of the police force of the participants, such as those who moved to the police 2nd time to the 3nd day of the movement of the 2nd day after the movement of the 3nd day by force of the participants in the police assembly and the 3nd day of the movement.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with 3,000 to 10,000 participants in the assembly on name and thereby interfered with the legitimate performance of police officers' duties by mass force.

D. Holding an assembly or demonstration on May 1, 2015 to February 2, 2015 without filing a report on the act of one citizen at one place.

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report on it to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

The Defendants did not report to the chief of the competent police station on May 1, 2015, but occupied the lane prior to the national border in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul at around 02:30 on May 1, 2015 to May 2, 2015, without permission, and held an assembly of “act of one citizen’s own gambling” with the members of the April 16 Joint Operation Committee, Nonindicted 71, and Defendant 2, including the members of the April 16 Joint Operation Committee and the bereaved family members of the Sewol ferry.

At around 02:30 to 100 on May 2 of the same year, the Defendants continued to hold an assembly with 400 participants in the assembly on the roads and India adjacent to the same safe-ri city. At around 14:25 on the same day, 250 participants were moved to the emulious square via the North Korean Personnel Marshall continue to hold an assembly from the emulative square to 15:50 on the same day, and at the same time, Defendant 2 appears to have had a lot of time until family members go to this emulated. The police prevented the police from meeting. The police did not have peacely because of the police wall. The police did not hold an assembly in the form of “Semul-ri-ri-ri”, such as “Semul-ri-ri-ri” to speak the citizens upon the physical distribution.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration which was not reported to the chief of the competent police station.

5. Criminal facts committed on April 18, 2015 by Defendant 1-2

(a) Organization of the unreported demonstration 2);

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report on it to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

At around 15:50 on April 18, 2015 to 16:30 on the same day, the Defendant: (a) hosted Nonindicted Party 2 as the society of the Director General of the National Human Rights Council of Bocheon-gu with the attendance of 9,000 joint members of the April 16th and bereaved families in Seoul Jung-gu, Seoul; (b) caused the increase of the participants to 10,300 on the same day; and (c) instigated the participants to 10,000 on the 16:30 on the same day, the participants, including the Defendant, from around 16:35 to around 16:30 on the same day, 10,000 participants including the Defendant, including the Defendant, “Sayang-gu, Hayang-gu, Hayang-gu, who was on the 16:20 on the 16th anniversary of the same month to 16:20 on the 16th anniversary of the same month.”

After that, I would like to see 10,00 so-called "I would like to close off by the police walls around the building in Seoul, and 2,00 out of 16:50 so-called "I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see more than 17:20 so-called "I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see our society. I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see our society.

Accordingly, the Defendant held a demonstration which was not reported to the chief of the competent police station.

(b) Order of dissolution and non-compliance;

From 16:30 to 23:20 on the same day, the Defendant was requested to voluntarily dissolve the Defendant around 19:11 on the same day on the grounds of the expenses of the police station and the unreported demonstration, etc., which resulted in direct and apparent danger to other’s legal interests or public peace and order, such as carrying dangerous objects or damaging the police bus by multiple force, etc., and thus causing direct and apparent danger to other’s legal interests or public peace and order by failing to report, etc. from the head of the police station at around 16:30 on the same day.

However, since participants in the assembly including the defendant did not comply with the demand for voluntary dispersion, the above director of the security division at around 19:20 on the same day, the second dispersion order at around 19:28 on the same day, the third dispersion order at around 19:38 on the same day, the fourth dispersion order at around 19:54 on the same day, the fiveth dispersion order at around 20:13 on the same day, the sixth dispersion order at around 20:43 on the same day, the seventh dispersion order at around 21:26 on the same day, and the eightth dispersion order at around 22:12 on the same day, the defendant did not immediately dissolve.

Accordingly, the Defendant refused to comply with the legitimate dispersion order by the chief of the police station.

(c) General traffic obstruction;

The Defendant, along with the 10,000 participants in the assembly, occupied 10 lanes in front of the Pakistan Building located in Jung-gu Seoul on April 18, 2015 from around 16:35 to 17:00 on April 18, 2015, and occupied 6,000 participants in the assembly at around 18:50 to 23:20 on the same day, and obstructed vehicle traffic by occupying 10 lanes in front of the government office building located in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with the participants in the above assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.

(d) Injury by special obstruction of performance of official duties or damage to special public goods;

After organizing the 10,00 participants of the Assembly, as described in the above paragraph (a) above, the Defendant moved to the luminous square with 10,000 participants in the Assembly, while moving to the luminous square, and some participants moved to the YCA et al. only after the YMCA et al. Some participants moved to the YMCA, and some participants moved to the Madylology 2 R, Schowons, Schowons, and North Korean Schoma. Some participants move to the YCA. Some participants move to the YCA.

그러던 중 집회 참가자들 6,000여 명 중 500여 명은 같은 날 18:00경 광화문 광장 세종대왕 동상 앞에 설치된 경찰 저지선 앞에 집결하여 마스크로 얼굴을 가린 채 광화문 누각 앞으로 진출을 기도하였고, 이를 막는 경비 경찰들을 향해 페트병, 날계란 등을 던지고 경찰들을 향해 스프레이를 분사하는 등 폭행을 시작하고, 불법 집회ㆍ시위 차단용으로 설치된 안전 펜스의 아랫부분을 밧줄로 묶고 당겨서 펜스를 끌어내는 등 서울지방경찰청이 관리하는 안전 펜스의 바닥 고정 부분을 손상하여 수리비 미상의 공용물건을 손상하였다. 계속하여 500여 명의 참가자들은 경찰의 안전 펜스로 광화문 누각 앞으로의 진출이 지연되자 세종문화회관을 우회하는 방식으로 진출을 기도하였고, 그곳을 방어하고 있던 경비 경찰의 방패를 잡고 흔들고 빼앗으려고 하고, 경찰관의 얼굴에 침을 뱉고, 주먹으로 경찰관의 얼굴 부위를 가격하고, 발로 경찰관의 발을 밟거나 다리를 걷어차는 등 다중의 위력으로 폭력을 행사하여 경비 경찰관의 집회ㆍ시위 질서유지 등 치안 업무에 관한 정당한 직무 집행을 방해하였고, 계속하여 같은 날 18:50경 다수의 집회 참가자들은 세종문화회관 뒤편에서 세종로 소공원을 가로질러 광화문 광장 내 세종대왕상 뒤편으로 이동하여 광화문 누각 앞 방면으로 진출을 기도하던 중 경찰 차벽에 의해 진출이 지연되자, 마스크로 얼굴을 가린 불상의 참가자들은 경찰 버스에 밧줄 등을 걸어 잡아당기거나 다수의 참가자들이 양손으로 버스를 밀어 차벽용 버스와 버스 사이에 공간을 확보하였고, 그 틈 사이로 500여 명의 참가자들이 경찰 저지선을 밀고 들어와 광화문 누각 앞 삼거리를 점거하였다. 그 과정에서 불상의 참가자들이 주먹으로 경찰관들을 때리거나 몸으로 밀어붙이고 경찰관들에게 망치, 헬멧, 플라스틱 폴리스라인, 돌 등 위험한 물건을 집어던지고, 당구 큐대, 쇠파이프 등 위험한 물건을 휘두르는 등 폭력을 행사함으로써 위험한 물건을 휴대하고 다중의 위력을 보여 경비 경찰관들의 집회ㆍ시위 질서유지 등 치안 업무에 관한 정당한 직무 집행을 방해하고, 이로 인하여 직무 집행 중인 피해자인 서울지방경찰청 기동본부 51기동대 소속 순경 공소외 75로 하여금 약 4주간의 치료를 요하는 우측 약지골절상을 입게 한 것을 비롯하여 별지 범죄일람표 (1) 기재와 같이 총 24명의 경찰관에게 상해를 입게 하였다. 또한 위와 같이 광화문 누각 앞 삼거리로 진출하는 과정에서 불상의 참가자들이 경찰 버스에 쇠사슬과 밧줄 등을 매어 잡아당기거나 수십 명이 양손으로 버스를 밀어 버스의 출입문과 유리창을 손괴하고, (차량번호 1 생략) 경찰 버스의 앞 타이어를 쇠꼬챙이로 찔러 펑크를 내고, 버스 지붕에 올라가 에어컨 펜 3개와 덮개 등을 파손하고, (차량번호 2 생략) 경찰 버스의 유리창 등을 부수고 침입하여 운전석 계기판, 버스 내부 CCTV 등을 파손하고, 쇠꼬챙이로 타이어를 찔러 다수의 경찰 버스를 손상시키고, 서울지방경찰청 제3기동단 33기동대 (차량번호 3 생략) 버스의 앞 유리창에 스프레이를 이용하여 ‘공소외인’, 좌측면에 ‘정부파산. 아싸라비아 콜롬비아. 정부가 다 죽였다’, 오른쪽 면에 ‘◇공주 꺼져. 세월호 인양하라. 공소외인 퇴진’ 등의 낙서를 하는 등 다수의 경찰 버스에 낙서를 하고, 경비 경찰을 밀치면서 휴대하고 있던 무전기 및 채증 카메라 2대를 탈취하여 길바닥에 던져 손상하는 등 별지 범죄일람표 (2) 기재와 같이 공용물건인 경찰 버스 70대 주3) 를 손상하고, 경찰 무전기, 캠코더 등 공용물건인 경찰 장비 353점에 손상을 가하여 그 효용을 해하였다.

Accordingly, the defendant, in collaboration with the 6,000 participants, has interfered with the legitimate performance of public duties by carrying dangerous objects or by the threat of multiple force, thereby causing injury to the police officers in total, 24, and damaged the police bus 70 vehicles and 353 police equipment, which are public goods.

6. Individual criminal facts against Defendant 2

(a) Obstruction of general traffic by August 15, 2014;

On August 15, 2014, at around 14:40 to 17:35, the Defendant attended the “National Assembly for Promotion of Enactment of the Special Act on the Sewol Ferry” organized by the National Assembly in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with 3,00 other participants in other assemblies, from around 19:05 to 22:00 of the same day, the Defendant occupied 8 lanes in both directions from the 19:05 to the 22:00, thereby hindering the traffic of vehicles.

Accordingly, the defendant conspired with the above participants in the assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.

B. From May 1, 2015 to February 2, 2015, one citizen-wide act

1) Failure to comply with the dispersion order

On May 1, 2015, around 21:20 to 24:00 participants of other assemblies, and the Defendant, at around 21:37 on the same day, requested voluntary dispersion from the head of the police station at around 21:37 on the same day on the ground that: (a) the Defendant, as described in paragraph (d) of Article 4, occupied the safe-of-state interest without permission and convened a report, resulting in a direct and apparent danger to others’ legal interests or public peace and order; (b) the Defendant, who was authorized by the head of the police station at the end of Seoul, was requested to voluntarily dissolve on the same day

However, participants in assemblies including the Defendant did not comply with the request for voluntary dispersion, and participants in assemblies in name did not immediately dissolve the police bus (vehicle No. 4 omitted), such as: (a) the front of the police bus (vehicle No. 4 omitted); (b) the rear typ fluorcing a free will; (c) the police bus was damaged; (d) the police bus was faced with the career of preparation; and (e) the police bus was faced with relief, such as "the bankruptcy government, the non-indicted ..... the enforcement decree is abolished;" and (e) the police bus was launched, and an unlawful violence meeting was convened, such as "the bankruptcy government, the non-indicted .... the enforcement decree," and (e) the head of the above security division took place on the police bus at least 21:42 on the same day; (c) the second dispersion order at around 21:48 on the same day; (d) the order at around 22:0 on the same day; (e) the order at around 222222:35:36 on the same day;

In addition, as described in paragraph (d) of the above Article 4, participants including the Defendant continued an assembly on May 2, 2015, on the roads and India near the Ando-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri-ri

Accordingly, the Defendant refused to comply with the legitimate dispersion order by the chief of the police station.

ii)general traffic obstruction;

At around 21:20 on May 1, 2015 to 22:0 on May 22, 2015, the Defendant occupied six lanes in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, including 1,300 participants in the assembly, and obstructed vehicle traffic.

Accordingly, the defendant conspired with the above participants in the assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.

"2015 Highly 728"

Defendant 1 is the chairperson of the National Countermeasure Committee and a person who works as a full-time operator of the 4.16 Joint Operation Committee.

The Defendant participated in various assemblies, such as “abscoping of the Enforcement Decree and acting for the Sewol Ferry,” held from April 11, 2015 to May 2, 2015, and took part in the search and seizure warrant issued to the joint office 4/16 joint and several offices around June 19, 2015, which led the Defendant to be investigated due to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, general traffic obstruction, and special obstruction of performance of official duties, etc., and the police held the search and seizure warrant issued to the joint office 4/16 joint and several offices around June 22, 2015.

On June 22, 2015, the Defendant presented 20 media reporters, citizens, etc. before the Jongno-gu Seoul Cheongdong District Office, with a view to criticizeing the police’s search and seizure of the April 16 joint offices, “I would like to raise such suspicions by the people? I would like to check that the case was undergoing a harsh drug? I would like to check that the case was not undergoing the search and seizure of the Blue House. In addition, I would like to check if I would like to check that the case was not being narcotics. I would like to know that I would like to know that I would not have been able to say that I would like to see that I would not see that I would not have been able to do so for 7 hours, such as skin and sexual surgery. I would like to know that I would not have been able to do so? I would like to see that I would like to know that I would not have been able to do so. I would like to know that I would not have been able to do so.

Summary of Evidence

"2015 Gohap690"

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness, Nonindicted 54, Nonindicted 55, Nonindicted 56, and Nonindicted 4

1. Some of the suspect interrogation guidelines against Defendant 1 by the prosecution (second time);

1. Nonindicted 57, Nonindicted 58, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 62, Nonindicted 63, Nonindicted 67, Nonindicted 68, Nonindicted 69, Nonindicted 71, Nonindicted 72, Nonindicted 73, Nonindicted 75, Nonindicted 77, Nonindicted 78, Nonindicted 79, Nonindicted 81, Nonindicted 82, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 2, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 85, Nonindicted 86, Nonindicted 89, Nonindicted 89, Nonindicted 90, Nonindicted 93, Nonindicted 96, Nonindicted 109, Nonindicted 109

1. Each internal investigation report (Attachment to the official announcement on the Internet homepage: Attachment to the National Countermeasures Committee/416; Internet data reported without the National Countermeasures Committee; evidence related to the March 1st and 416 National Joint Assembly; evidence related to the national behavior during the March 1st, the current situation of damage to the police of the Sewol ferry; telephone call details analysis; relation to the April 16th National Joint Office; photograph, documentary evidence attached to the suspect's photo, documentary evidence attached to the suspect's photo, documentary evidence attached; telephone call details attached to the suspect's 1; 1.5th order; 2.4th order related to the obstruction of performance of official duties; each investigation report (related to the attachment to Defendant 1's video CD; 416 jointly related; 4.2nd order related to each assembly; 1.4th order related to the cell phone, etc. attached to the suspect's cell phone list; and 1.5th order related to the notification;

1. Each illegal act person's photograph, Internet interview data, etc., copy of the assembly report, each evidence of evidence, damage details, each transmission, each record of reception, media interview articles, Internet data, contents of posting related to the assembly of the 416 joint website, three copies of the Internet news CD, Internet news data, April 16 assembly related to the assembly, April 18, 14, 14.7.7.24, 14.7.7.7.7.207, each of the following: photographic photofags, CD No. 1, CD No. 6586, Dec. 16, 2006, 196, 196, 2006, 4.6.6.6.6.66.6.6.66.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.6.

"2015 Highly 728"

1. The defendant 1's partial statement

1. Some prosecutor's protocol of examination of the defendant 1

1. Each investigation report (to be accompanied by a screen image of Cheongchina Machina Machina Machina Machina Machina Machina Machina 416 on June 22, 2015, Machina 416 on March 22, 2015, Machina Machina Machina Machina Machina

1. Articles 10 and 18 of the Act on August 13, 2014; Articles 18 and 28 of the Act on August 13, 2014; Articles 18 and 28 of the Act on August 28, 2014; and Articles 18 and 28 of the Act on August 28, 2014;

Application of Statutes

1. Article relevant to the facts constituting an offense and the selection of punishment;

A. Defendant 1: Articles 22(3) and 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 22(2) and the main sentence of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the holding of an unreported assembly or demonstration on April 18, 2015 shall be deemed to be an independent crime; the holding of an unreported assembly or demonstration on April 18, 2015 shall be deemed to be an unreported assembly or demonstration); Articles 24 subparag. 5 and 20(2) and 2(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 14(1) and 136(1) and the main sentence of Article 6(1) of the Criminal Act; Article 30 of the Criminal Act; Article 130 of the Criminal Act’s imprisonment with prison labor; Article 146(1) and (3) of the Act; Article 130 of the Special 4 of the Criminal Act’s.

B. Defendant 2: (a) Articles 22(3) and 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; (b) Article 30 of the Criminal Act; (c) Article 22(2) and the main sentence of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; (d) Article 30 of the Criminal Act; (c) Article 24 Subparag. 5 of the Criminal Act; and Articles 20(2) and 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (which means the violation of the order of dissolution; (d) Article 20(1)5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; (e) Article 185, Article 30 of the Criminal Act; (e) Article 14(1) and Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act; and (e) Article 30 of the Criminal Act; and (e) Article 20(1)2 of the Act on the Assembly and Demonstration; and (e) Article 20(1)5 of the same Act regarding the violation of the order of dispersion from May 1, 201, 2015

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

A. Defendant 1: the former part of Article 37, Articles 38(1)2, and 50 of the Criminal Act (a)

(b) Defendant 2: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment and punishment provided for by general traffic obstruction on May 1, 2015)

1. Suspension of execution;

Defendants: each of the defendants' grounds for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

1. Social service order;

Defendants: each of the Defendants under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Act

Judgment on the defendants' and defense counsel's arguments

1. Whether the Defendants’ failure to report constitutes a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act pursuant to the Assembly and Demonstration Act

A. Relevant legal principles

1) Criteria for determining whether an organizer is an organizer

According to Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), the organizer refers to a person or organization taking part in an assembly or demonstration under his/her own responsibility under Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. The organizer of a demonstration subject to prior report under Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act refers to a person who holds or takes part in an assembly or demonstration, or who plans and forms a demonstration and takes part in the implementation of the demonstration (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2821, Sept. 29, 201). In addition, in applying the penal provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, if an organization promotes an assembly or demonstration under Article 25 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, its representative shall be deemed the organizer.

2) Scope of application of Article 15 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

Unlike Article 2 Subparag. 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act defines that “the term of a demonstration means an act of driving at a place where many people can freely pass through, such as a road, plaza, park, etc. for common purposes, or showing power or influence on, or pressure on, an unspecified number of people.” However, an assembly subject to security and regulation under the Assembly and Demonstration Act refers to an act of temporarily gathering at a certain place for the purpose of externally expressing such opinion.” (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1649, Jul. 9, 2009, etc.). Meanwhile, Article 15 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not require the chief of a police station to submit a report in advance to the chief of the competent police station for an outdoor assembly or demonstration beyond the scope of an opportunity to submit the report to the chief of the competent police station in accordance with Article 6 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. However, even if an outdoor assembly or demonstration is held within the scope of an outdoor assembly or demonstration, it does not require the chief of the competent police station to submit the report in advance.

B. Determination

1) On April 11, 2015, whether an assembly or demonstration constitutes a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act following an assembly or demonstration not reported.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances admitted by the evidence, the fact that the Defendants conspired to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration on April 11, 2015 without filing a prior report is recognized.

A) The Defendants recognized the fact that they held a demonstration from around April 11, 2015 without filing a prior report.

B) Defendant 1, who is a standing operating member and Defendant 2’s 4/16 joint and several staff members, publicly announced on the website that “one person’s total action for destruction of governmental enforcement decree, such as a group of demonstration, and group of groups, from April 11, 2015 to 30 p.m.” (Article 7:266 of the Investigation Records) and held an outdoor assembly without filing a prior report. Although the above assembly was held in the form of culture, since it was held and progress for the purpose of urging the “for the Sewol ferry and the destruction of the Enforcement Decree” beyond the purpose of art awareness, it cannot be viewed as an assembly under Article 15 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

2) On April 16, 2015, whether the assembly or demonstration violated the Assembly and Demonstration Act pursuant to an unreported assembly or demonstration is established

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the following circumstances admitted by the evidence, the fact that the Defendants conspired to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration on April 16, 2015 without filing a prior report is recognized.

A) On April 16, 2015, the April 16, 2016 solidarity officially declared the presidential Decree, namely, the destruction and hull seal in the Seoul Square, and held an outdoor assembly on its website that “after the event, it is a part-time hall installed in the luminous square” (No. 250 of the Investigation Records No. 7), and without a prior report after advertising in a daily newspaper (No. 7th page of the Investigation Records No. 52 of the Investigation Records). Although the above assembly was held in the form of a memorial system, it was held and progress for the purpose of urging “the destruction of the Sewol ferry and the destruction of the Enforcement Decree” beyond the purpose of consciousness, and it cannot be deemed that the assembly that took place from around 19:0 to around 21:10 is an assembly under Article 15 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

B) After the completion of the above assembly, the participants of the assembly moved in the direction of the luminous square, without going through the outside of the relief of the Sewol ferry and the destruction of the Enforcement Decree, and going through the direction of the luminous square, as examined in the following 3.b.2(a). The Defendants made a statement to instigate participants, as well as the participants. Accordingly, Article 15 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not apply to a demonstration as it constitutes a demonstration that affects the opinions of many unspecified persons, or that it constitutes an act of undermining the free access of the general public with a common purpose.

3) Whether a crime of violating the Assembly and Demonstration Act following an unreported assembly or demonstration on May 1, 2015 or on February 1, 2015 is established

In light of the aforementioned legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, the fact that the Defendants conspired to hold an assembly or demonstration on May 1, 2015 or on February 2, 2015 without filing a prior report is recognized.

A) Defendant 2 recognized the fact that an outdoor assembly or demonstration was held on May 1, 2015 or on May 2, 2015 without filing a prior report.

B) On the other hand, Defendant 1 alleged that the above assembly or demonstration did not have been hosted, but Defendant 1 publicly announced on the website that 4/16 Joint and several members of the April 1, 2015, “after the progress of labor-saving competitions in Seoul Square from 7:0 p.m. to 5:0 p.m., they held an assembly with the audience from 7:0 p.m. (No. 7:36 of the Investigation Record). At the end of the assembly, the participants took care of the “def.c.,” and carried out the assembly with the front lane. Article 14(3) of the Joint and Several Regulations of 4/16 provides that “The standing operating member shall be regularly responsible for the operation of the p.m. and the execution of the work at the p.m.” (see the National Joint and Several Covenant of April 16, 100, etc.). As such, Defendant 1 and the organizer of an outdoor assembly shall represent joint and several, pursuant to Article 25 of the Assembly Act.

2. Whether the Defendants’ failure to comply with the dispersion order constitutes a crime of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

A. Relevant legal principles

1) The need for notification of the cause of dissolution

Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that “the head of the competent police authority may demand voluntary dispersion of any of the following assemblies or demonstrations within a considerable time and order dispersion if such demand is not complied with.” Article 20(2) provides that “All participants shall immediately dissolve when an assembly or demonstration is ordered to do so under paragraph (1).” As a matter of interpretation of the relevant provision, when the head of the competent police authority issues the dispersion order, he/she must specifically notify whether the cause for dissolution falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7193, Feb. 9, 2012). Therefore, in cases where the head of the competent police authority did not give specific notice of the cause for dissolution while issuing the dispersion order or ordered dispersion while notifying a justifiable cause, even if not complying with such dispersion order, it cannot be said that Article 20(2) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act has been violated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4127, Mar. 13, 2014).

2) Requirements for dispersion order in the case of an assembly or demonstration not reported

Article 6(1)2, Article 20(2), and Article 24 subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act impose a duty to report on a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration, stating specific matters, before 720 hours to the chief of the competent police station, and may order dissolution of an outdoor assembly or demonstration which is not reported accordingly through certain procedures. The purport of the Act’s prior notification regarding an outdoor assembly or demonstration is to protect the legal interests of others by grasping its nature and size in advance and to protect legitimate outdoor assembly or demonstration, and thus, to ensure that the freedom of assembly or demonstration is not clearly permitted for the sake of maintaining public safety and order by providing information on the assembly or demonstration to the head of the competent police station during the period from 20 hours to 48 hours (see Supreme Court Decision 208Do31166, Oct. 23, 2008). As such, the State’s freedom of assembly or demonstration, including the freedom of assembly or demonstration, is not necessarily subject to any restriction on the freedom of assembly or demonstration.

B. Determination

In light of the above legal principles and the following circumstances admitted by the evidence, the Defendants violated the lawful dispersion order by the head of the competent police authority on April 11, 2015 and April 16, 2015.

1) Grounds for dispersion

On April 11, 2015 and April 16, 2015, the chief of the Sejong Police Station guard who was authorized to issue an order of dispersion by the head of the competent police authority at the place of assembly and demonstration requested voluntary dispersion on the ground that the participants were an assembly or demonstration for which a report under Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act was not made, and thereafter issued a dispersion order on ten occasions on April 11, 2015 and on four occasions on April 16, 2015 as prescribed in Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

2) Whether a direct danger to another person’s legal interest or public peace and order has been clearly caused

As examined earlier, the Defendants held an outdoor assembly or demonstration without filing a prior report on April 11, 2015, April 16, 2015, and as examined in Articles 3.b.1 and 3.b.2, the Defendants clearly clarified that they would be going to go to the direction of the Cheongdaedae by going through the Cheongdaemun square, as well as with many participants of the demonstration, with the appearance of aid, such as “the Enforcement Decree is abolished. The Nonindicted Party is going to abolish the Enforcement Decree.” As such, it can be recognized that the director of the senior police station directly at the time of issuing a dispersion order, the direct danger to other’s legal interest or public safety and order has been clearly caused.

3. Whether the crime of obstructing special obstruction of performance of official duties, injury resulting from special obstruction of official duties, or damage to special public goods;

A. Relevant legal principles

1) Whether performance of duties is lawful or not

A) Legal grounds and lawful requirements for the installation of teas and safety fences

Article 6(1) of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers (hereinafter “Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers”) provides that “If a police officer deems that a criminal act is about to be committed in front of the police officer, the police officer may issue a warning to interested persons to prevent the criminal act, and if it is urgent that such act might inflict harm on human life and body or cause serious damage to property, the police officer may restrain the act.” In order for a police officer’s restraint measure under the above provision to be deemed legitimate performance of his/her duties, it can be objectively recognized that the act subject to criminal punishment can be conducted in front of the snow, and there is a situation where the act is likely to inflict harm on human life and body, or would inflict serious damage on property unless the act is avoided, and thus, it must be an imminent situation other than by which the aforementioned consequence cannot be prevented (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do9937, Jun. 13, 2013).

B) The legal basis and lawful requirements for the operation of gas sprayers and sprinks

Article 10 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers provides that "The police officer may use police equipment, such as weapons, police gear, tear agents, launching devices thereof, and sprinks during the performance of his/her duties." Article 10-3 subparagraph 2 of the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers provides that "If it is inevitable for the police officer to perform his/her duty of preventing significant danger and injury to the life, body, property, and safety of public facilities due to illegal assembly or demonstration, the police officer may use a gas gun to the minimum necessary minimum extent at his/her discretion." Article 13(1) of the Regulations on the Criteria, etc. for the Use of Police Equipment provides that "Where it is inevitable for the police officer to suppress any danger and injury to the life, body, or property of another person or police officer that may be caused by illegal assembly, demonstration, or riot, and any danger and injury to public facilities, the police officer

C) Criteria for determining the legality of the execution of duties relating to an assembly or demonstration

(1) The existence of the need to guarantee a lawful and peaceful freedom of assembly or demonstration

Article 21(1) of the Constitution provides that “All citizens shall have the freedom of press and the freedom of assembly and association,” thereby guaranteeing the freedom of assembly including demonstration as a fundamental right. Such freedom of assembly and demonstration is a fundamental right that an individual may freely express his/her opinion and assertion in group without intervention or coercion of state power, and belongs to an individual’s personality expression element and an essential element of a democratic state of representative democracy (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13846, Oct. 13, 201). In that it provides a minority group not having access to the media in the modern society with appropriate means to defend their rights and interests, it has very important meaning as a counter reflecting the state opinion (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 200Hun-Ba67, Oct. 30, 2003). Therefore, the freedom of peaceful assembly and demonstration is lawful, and the assembly and demonstration should be guaranteed to the maximum extent possible, and in the event of a violation of the relevant laws and regulations, regardless of whether an assembly or demonstration is subject to be subject to punishment.

(2) The existence of the need to harmoniously guarantee the freedom of assembly or demonstration and public peace and order.

However, the freedom of assembly or demonstration is not absolute or unlimited, and is more likely to cause damage to public peace and order or legal peace and peace than in the case of an individual act due to the nature of an assembly or demonstration, which is a means of expression accompanying collective activities of many people (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Order 91Hun-Ba14, Apr. 28, 1994). Therefore, the freedom of assembly or demonstration may be restricted by Act if necessary for national security, maintenance of public order, or public welfare within the extent that its essential contents are not infringed pursuant to Article 37(2) of the Constitution. If an assembly or demonstration considerably violates relevant laws and regulations or is made in peace and order, it is necessary to restrict it in order to ensure legitimate and peaceful assembly or demonstration freedom and public peace and order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 91Hun-Ba14, Apr. 28, 1994); Article 15(1) of the Assembly or Demonstration Act (see, e.g., Article 15(2)1)., Article 5).

(3) The importance of the prior reporting system in guaranteeing lawful and peaceful assemblies and demonstrations

Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides for the prior reporting system of an outdoor assembly or demonstration. However, in light of the respective provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and the purport of the prior reporting system as seen earlier, prior reporting is the starting point of mutual efforts for the freedom of assembly or demonstration, the national security, the maintenance of public order, or the balance between public welfare. Therefore, it cannot be said that the above duty to report is exempted on the ground that the opinion to indicate through an outdoor assembly or demonstration is justifiable (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 90Do870, Aug. 14, 1990; 2008Do9049, Oct. 25, 2010; 2008Do9049, etc.), or that an outdoor assembly or demonstration would be held is peaceful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1649, Jul. 9, 2009).

(4) Duties of State agencies, such as the organizer of an assembly or demonstration and the police, to ensure harmonious guarantee

The organizer of an assembly or demonstration and the police, etc. shall endeavor to ensure the lawful and peaceful freedom of the assembly or demonstration and public peace and order harmoniously. In particular, the organizer of an assembly or demonstration shall not be obliged to file a constitutional complaint against the return of the report by the head of the competent police authority, or to file an objection against the notification of the prohibition or restriction of the assembly or demonstration, or to file an administrative litigation, etc. without due process; and shall hold an assembly or demonstration through legitimate procedures; and shall endeavor to seek cooperation to ensure the legitimate and peaceful assembly or demonstration with the police and other national agencies; and shall endeavor to prevent and remove the non-pacific situation by himself/herself, if it is anticipated that the assembly or demonstration might be interfered with (Article 3(3)); and (4) the organizer of an assembly or demonstration may request the competent police authority to protect the assembly or demonstration from participating in the assembly or demonstration (Article 4(1)6); and (6) the organizer of the assembly or demonstration shall not immediately file an objection against the notification of the prohibition or restriction of the assembly or demonstration (Article 16(1).6).

Meanwhile, in light of the purport of the prior reporting system as seen earlier, national agencies, such as the police, must strictly interpret the requirements for prohibiting or restricting assemblies or demonstrations so as not to operate the prior reporting system in the form of a permitted system, and must cooperate closely with the organizer to maintain order by actively responding to the request for the protection of organizers and by formulating a transportation plan so that the reported assemblies or demonstrations can proceed lawfully and peacefully, and shall endeavor to induce and protect peaceful assemblies or demonstrations more peacefully than the role of preventing and managing the assembly or demonstration during the assembly or demonstration.

(5) Matters to be considered in determining the legality of the performance of duties relating to an assembly or demonstration

The legality of performing duties related to an assembly or demonstration is not determined by pure objective criteria, in particular, on the basis of the specific situation at the time of taking measures, by comprehensively taking into account whether the organizer of an assembly or demonstration or State agencies, such as the police, have made every effort to hold a lawful and peaceful assembly or demonstration, including the purpose, size, etc. of the assembly or demonstration (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do937, Jun. 13, 2013). In other words, ① an outdoor assembly or demonstration held without due process, including a prior report, or an outdoor assembly or demonstration held without a prior report, or the actual outdoor assembly or demonstration was not identical with the reported date, time, place, purpose, size, etc., and ② the organizer of an assembly or demonstration is deemed to have been unlawful or to not actively endeavored to hold an assembly or demonstration without any prior request or measures, or to maintain the order or demonstration without any particular reason even if it is anticipated that the assembly or demonstration would be carried out in an unlawful or peaceful manner.

On the other hand, the organizer of an assembly or demonstration voluntarily takes measures, such as holding an assembly or demonstration through lawful procedures, such as prior reporting, excluding participation from a specific organization or person for a lawful and peaceful assembly or demonstration, and requested the competent police agency to provide prior protection, and actively takes measures to maintain order at the time of an assembly or demonstration, such as making a declaration of termination in the event of an unlawful or non-pacific situation, but (2) the police authorities, etc. actively cope with the situation, such as taking measures to ensure a lawful and peaceful assembly or demonstration; however, the police authorities’ efforts to prevent and manage an assembly or demonstration by installing the following walls or safety fences, etc., and restricting the movement of the participants on the ground that it is illegal or pacific assembly or demonstration without making all efforts to ensure its lawful and peaceful assembly or demonstration; and even if there is a conflict between the participants and police, it should be deemed that the enforcement of the police authority’s exercise of public authority for the prevention, suppression, dissolution, and dissolution of an assembly or demonstration is strict and its duty of examination is strict.

2) Requirements for the establishment of co-principals

Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, which constitute a crime through functional control over the criminal intent. Even if part of the conspiracys do not directly participate in the crime, if it is acknowledged that there exists functional control over the crime through substantial contribution to the crime rather than mere conspiracys, it is not possible to exempt public officials from punishment as a so-called co-principal (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 98Do321, May 21, 1998; 2002Do995, Jun. 24, 2004; 2002Do5206, Mar. 11, 2005). It is also possible that the two or more co-offenders had no specific criminal intent to commit a crime, and thus, they would not have any specific criminal intent to commit a crime, and thus, they would not have any specific criminal intent to commit a crime, such as the likelihood of two or more different criminal intent to commit a crime.

B. Determination

1) Whether the Defendants’ crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was established on April 11, 2015

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence as seen below, the police officer’s duty execution of the police station with the police station using the police force, safety pents, walls, and gas sprayers on the north of the luminous square is legitimate, and the defendants interfere with the above duty execution with 2,200 participants of the meeting in name due to the intent of joint processing through functional control.

A) Whether the organizer’s efforts for lawful and peaceful assemblies and demonstrations are made

(1) Whether a prior effort is made to prevent unlawful or non-pacific assemblies or demonstrations

(A) On April 11, 2015, a group of 4/16 holding an assembly or demonstration without filing a prior report, held an outdoor assembly or demonstration on April 11, 2015. There is no circumstance in which the April 16 solidarity excluded an organization or people anticipated to engage in an unlawful or pacific act in advance, or requested the competent police office to provide protection for a peaceful assembly or demonstration.

(B) Rather, at around 19:00, Nonindicted 134, the chairman of the 4/16 Family Council enforcement committee, made a statement to the effect that “In order to hear the response to the Cheongdaedae.” The date on which today’s families and citizens need to act together with the other members.” Accordingly, the participants started driving ahead of the Sejong Culture Center with occupying the front lane of the Sejong Culture Center.

(2) Whether efforts are made to restrain or eliminate illegal or pacific participants' actions

(A) At around 21:00, the participants moved along the way prior to the direction of the route in the Croter direction in Seoul Square, and some of the participants thereafter continued to hold a vehicle going beyond the opposite lane. After around 21:35, there was a conflict with the police forces with the police forces having installed the police stop line by using safety fences in the luminous square. However, there was no circumstance that the organizer made efforts to restrain and remove the act of violence, such as making a declaration of the conclusion of the demonstration, even if the organizer was unable to maintain the order, and even if it was unable to do so, there was no circumstance that the organizer made efforts to restrain and remove the act of violence.

(B) Rather, the Defendants and the participants occupying the roads along with the participants as follows, and urged the participants to move toward the direction of the Cheongdae, thereby causing a conflict with the police forces.

① Defendant 1 called Defendant 1 at any time to contact with the standing committee members on April 16 or the operating committee members, including Defendant 2, and went along along with the participants in the demonstration. On April 11, 2015, Defendant 1 arranged demonstrations around 23:46, and used broadcasting vehicles. The purpose of Defendant 1 was to “it is easy for us to use the broadcasting vehicles.” On April 18, 201, so that fighting begins and string at the end on April 18, 200. Furthermore, Defendant 1 made a statement to the effect that it is difficult for Cheongdae-man to put it in a larger force on April 16 and April 18, 2015.”

② On April 11, 2015, Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that, with the participants of the demonstration, Defendant 2 took place, using broadcasting vehicles, “to gather little fluence and again listen to Nonindicted 136 chairperson’s talks as Cheong,” and at around 20:05, Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that “it is difficult to see that she would have been able to see the front way”. On the same day, Defendant 2 made a statement to the effect that “I want to see the front way” and “I would like to see that we have come up with the front time, and I would like to see that I would like to see more than 4 times. I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see more than 5 times before the front time, and that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see that I would like to see more than 3 times. I would like to us. I would like. I will.

③ On April 11, 2015, Non-Indicted 71, using broadcasting vehicles, made a statement to the effect that “the Non-Indicted Party 71” was “the Non-Indicted Party 1,” and Non-Indicted Party 136 of the Joint Steering Committee on April 16, 2016 also made a statement to the effect that “the Non-Indicted Party 136 was attempted to go to the audience,” and there is insufficient number of 8,000 persons, using broadcasting vehicles around 23:50 on the same day. April 16, 200 to show the people’s power by mobilization of only one person per April 16, 200, and 80,000 persons were gathered on April 16, 201.

B) Whether the police and other government agencies endeavor to hold lawful and peaceful assemblies and demonstrations

On April 11, 2015, at around 19:06, the police tried to maintain traffic order, ensure the safety of the participants of the demonstration, and ensure the passage of the participants of the demonstration, such as moving along the lane in the front of the Sejong Culture Center, at around 20:23 as of the same day, when the 20:23 as of the same day moves along and proceeding the lane in the direction of the Cheongdo-ro, the same day, at around 20:30 as of the same day.

C) Other factors to be considered.

(1) Scale and mode of the participants of an assembly or demonstration

The instant assembly or demonstration was held without a prior report, and the police could not expect the direction of the participants or the direction of the demonstration. However, on April 11, 2015, the citizens participated in the assembly or demonstration with more than 2,000 people, and the demonstration was conducted in a way that occupies the entire lane in a broad area.

(2) The direction of the participants in the demonstration and the possibility of collision;

As seen earlier, the participants, including the Defendants, made it clear that it was the main purpose of the demonstration to proceed in the direction of a place within 100 meters from the boundary of the Cheongdae-dae, which is an absolute assembly prohibition zone (Defendant 1 had an interview conducted on April 11, 2015 to the effect that “the bereaved family member attempted to enter the Cheongdae-dae, together with citizens on April 11, 2015, and had a defense wall at a considerably high level than before the police during the process of blocking the interview (Article 647 of the Investigation Record).” Therefore, there was a conflict between the police forces and the police forces to prevent access within 100 meters from the boundary of the Cheongdae-dae-dae-dae-dae-dae-dae-dae-dae-dae-dae-dae-dae-dae, and there was a risk of damage to the citizens’ property, body, and property of the citizens due to such conflict.

(3) The need to install the police patrol boat using police forces, safety fences, tea walls, and gas sprayers.

At around 21:00 on April 11, 2015, the participants of the demonstration took place in the direction of the North Korean square with the lane after Nonindicted 134’s speech, and the police installed a polysium in the direction of the participants of the demonstration, but the participants of the demonstration continued to be in the direction of the police’s warning, disregarding the police’s warning, and even if the participants of the demonstration made it clear that the purpose of the demonstration is to be promoted in the direction of the audience, the participants of the demonstration was reasonable. In light of such circumstances and circumstances, it can be objectively recognized that the act subject to criminal punishment at the time of the police’s decision was attempted to prevent the participants from being committed in the front, and the police was likely to inflict harm on human life and body, or to inflict serious damage on property, and the police tried to break out the demonstration beyond the police wall’s warning to prevent the participants from participating in the demonstration by using the police pen, the safety wall, or the gas gun.

2) Whether the Defendants’ crime of obstruction of performance of official duties was established on April 16, 2015

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence as seen below, the police officer’s performance of duties by using police forces, safety fences, chassiss, and gas sprayers is legitimate. The Defendants’ performance of duties is legitimate. The Defendants’ intent of co-processing interfered with the above performance of duties with 3,00 to 10,000 participants of the assembly in name due to their functional control.

A) Whether the organizer’s efforts for lawful and peaceful assemblies and demonstrations are made

(1) Whether a prior effort is made to prevent unlawful or non-pacific assemblies or demonstrations

(A) As seen in Article 1.2(b)2(a) of the April 16, 2015, the 4.16 Joints held an assembly or demonstration on its website without filing a prior report in advance, even though the participants did not report to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration on April 16, 2015. On April 11, 2015, the 5th day prior to the 5th day before the 5th day before the 5th day before the police forces and the collision with the police forces in the event the participants of the demonstration are going to go to the king and the opposition, the 4.16th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 5th day after the 196th day

(B) Rather, at around 19:00 on April 16, 2015, Defendant 1 told “not only at the time when they are cut off, but also at the time when they need to be wraped. It is time for us to w off to prevent the president from sending off to this ground. Then, Defendant 1 made all the remarks to the purport that “a person who is wrapd with his/her bereaved family” was wraped with his/her family members, and she moved toward the direction of a luminous square along with the participants in the assembly.

(2) Whether efforts are made to restrain or eliminate illegal or pacific participants' actions

(A) At around 21:10 on April 16, 2015, the participants in the assembly moved along the lane in the direction of the luminous plaza in Seoul Square, and neglected and driven by the police. The participants moved along the lane in the previous lane by up to 22:05 on the same day to up to 23:15 on the same day, and continued the demonstration while moving along the lane by up to 23:15 on the same day. At around 23:40 on the same day, the participants conflict with the police forces that installed the police patrol line in the vicinity of the steering boat. However, in the process, there was no circumstance that the organizer made efforts to restrain and remove the act of violence, such as declaring the conclusion of the demonstration, even if the organizer did not have made efforts to maintain the order, and it was impossible to maintain the order.

(B) Rather, the Defendants and the participants occupying the roads along with the participants as follows, and urged the participants to move toward the direction of the Cheongdae, thereby causing a conflict with the police forces.

① Defendant 1 made a statement as referred to in Paragraph (1) Item (b) above, and moved along with the participants in the assembly, and took place with them. Defendant 1 did not make efforts to restrain the participants from committing violence or to maintain order in the event of a collision with the police force before Defendant 1, Defendant 1 did not make efforts to restrain the participants in the demonstration, and rather, caused the participants to close the police force.

② Defendant 2, along with the participants in the assembly, moved along the lane with the participants in the assembly and going on the road leading up to the front wall. Defendant 2 expressed to the effect that “Nonindicteds are no longer going to go to the President of the Republic of Korea, but rather to go to the Cheongbu. Cheongbu, I would like to declare that us is the principal and us will reveal the truth by themselves. The same is that us wanting to make a fry in the luminous language, but I want to do so without going through the luminous language. Family members are waiting for a lush. They are waiting for a lushion.” They expressed to the effect that she can go to the lush.

③ At around 23:00 on April 16, 2015, Nonindicted 71, a joint operating member of the April 16, 2016, told Nonindicted 71 to the effect that “the bereaved families are waiting for a number of minutes in front of the ancient palaces. Some of the bereaved families are waiting for a lot of minutes.” They speaked to the effect that “In any other way, they are moving to the ancient palaces in which the bereaved families are located.”

B) Whether the police and other government agencies endeavor to hold lawful and peaceful assemblies and demonstrations

On or before April 16, 2015, the police was unable to plan "the prevention of illegal parking and stopping in a happy section for securing a happy lane, securing the safety of pedestrians in the installation section of LED P/L, securing the traffic of vehicles, and prior control and meeting, etc. to prevent ordinary vehicles from being confined in the installation section of the wall, etc." (No. 3409 of the Investigation Records). When the participants of the demonstration occupy the lane from the Seoul Square to the three-lanes around 21:10, the police tried to maintain traffic order and ensure the safety and passage of participants of the demonstration, such as securing the traffic safety and passage of participants of the demonstration, by installing the order line on the two-lanes, allowing the participants of the demonstration to pass through the above road.

C) Other factors to be considered.

(1) Scale and mode of the participants of an assembly or demonstration

The instant assembly or demonstration was held without a prior report, and the police could not expect the direction of the participants or the direction of the demonstration. However, on April 16, 2015, citizens participated in the assembly or demonstration from 3,000 to 10,000 persons, and it was conducted in a way that occupies the entire lane in a broad area.

(2) The direction of the participants in the demonstration and the possibility of collision;

On April 11, 2015, the participants of the organizer, including the Defendants, expressed that they will proceed to the direction of the audience on April 16, 2015, as seen in the above 1)(A)(2)(b), and made it clear that it is the main purpose of the demonstration to proceed to the direction of the audience on April 16, 2015. Accordingly, there was a risk of damage to the public’s property, life, and body due to the conflict between the police forces to block access within 100 meters from the boundary of the audience, which is the absolute prohibition area, and the police forces to enter the direction of the audience on April 16, 2015.

(3) The need to install police stations using police forces, safety fences, tea walls, and gas sprayers.

On April 16, 2015, participants of the assembly started moving along the direction of the luminous square without moving the lane into the luminous square, and continued moving towards the direction of the luminous square without disregarding the police warning and moving over the two-way lanes. In light of such circumstances and the situation that the participants of the demonstration clearly carried out the purpose of pursuing the direction of the audience, it can be objectively recognized that the act subject to criminal punishment at the time of the police’s decision can be objectively recognized that the act subject to criminal punishment would be likely to cause harm to human life and body or grave damage to property unless the act is avoided, and the police police continued to break out the direction of the demonstration with the warning of the participants of the demonstration, excluding the restriction of the progress by using the safety pen or the wall, and it was recognized that the participants of the demonstration continued to break out the direction of the police squad as the situation where the participants of the demonstration could not exercise the same damage as the above paragraph (2). Meanwhile, it was recognized that the participants of the demonstration continued to break out the passage of the police squad after the passage.

3) Whether Defendant 1’s crime of causing bodily injury to special obstruction of performance of official duties and damage to special public goods was established on April 18, 2015

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence as follows, the police guard line was installed using police force, chassis, safety fences, and gas sprayers, and the police officer’s performance of duties to dissolve the participants using water can be deemed lawful. The defendant and the participants in the assembly can be said to have been combined with the police officer’s intent at least impliedly performing official duties. The defendant could have sufficiently predicted that some participants in the assembly carrying dangerous objects were at the meeting, and that the defendant would be able to suffer injury to the police officer due to the display of the dangerous objects. Thus, it is recognized that the defendant interfered with the performance of the above duties with 6,00 participants in the assembly by functional control of the act and caused injury to the police officers in the process of performing official duties, and caused damage to the public goods.

A) Whether the organizer’s efforts for lawful and peaceful demonstration are made

(1) Whether an advance effort is made to prevent unlawful or pacific demonstration

(A) On its website, the April 16 solidarity announced on the homepage that “an assembly of human belts with the audience on April 18, 2015” (Article 7:48 of the Investigation Records) and held a demonstration without filing a prior report even though it was notified in advance to hold a demonstration on a daily newspaper (Article 52 of the Investigation Records). On April 11, 2015; and on April 16, 2015, the participants of the demonstration who want to take action in the direction of the audience and the police forces on April 18, 2015, were anticipated to have a conflict between the participants of the demonstration and the police forces who want to take action in the same direction, but did not either exclude an organization or people anticipated to take a peaceful action or request the protection of a peaceful demonstration, which is a competent police agency.

(B) Rather, on April 15, 2015, Defendant 1 posted a notice on Defendant 1’s joint website, stating that “The date of April 18, 2015, 2015, refers to the time when he or she would have ear-free and talked with the government that makes his or her talk about and the political rights of the people. The authors responded to the demand of the people only to the extent that she is threatened with his or her own competence. In order to prevent any harsh gap, at present, Nonindicted 2 of the society at an assembly held in the Seoul square, made a statement on April 16:30, 2015.”

(2) Whether efforts are made to restrain or eliminate illegal or pacific participants' actions

(A) From April 18, 2015 to April 16:35, 2015, the participants moved along the lane in the direction of the luminous square in Seoul Square, and thereafter 10,000 persons were engaged in a demonstration in a mountain step in the front line of the Andong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-only-only-only-child-only-child-child-related-car-car-car-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-car.

(B) Rather, Defendant 1 prepared and posted an appeal as referred to in Paragraph (1) Item (b) above, followed by participating in the demonstration with the 4.16 Joint Standing Operating Committee or Operating Committee members from time to time, and occupied the road along with the participants in the demonstration, organized the demonstration in the luminous square and organized the demonstration at the luminous square. The government can not be recognized as the government if the government does not resist the purport of the people. Up to the 24th day of the 24th day of the next month, many subdivisions, including the president's Democratic Winter Games, and the president of the Republic of Korea, were born. At the same time, our 24th day of the next month’s 24th day of the next month’s 24th day of the 24th day of the year. In addition, we will be forgotten for this night, which we created by us. If his family and citizens are mother, they can be able to define, to clarify the truth, and to speak the government that made corruption."

B) Whether government agencies, such as police, have made efforts for lawful and peaceful demonstration

In order to ensure smooth progress before April 18, 2015, the police carried out a transportation management plan such as the above (2)(b)(the investigation record No. 3409). On April 18, 2015, the participants in the demonstration moved along a lane in the direction of the flow of the luminous plaza in the direction of the luminous plaza in the direction of the direction of the luminous plaza in the direction of the erode, around 16:35 on April 18, 2015. On the same day, the police made efforts to maintain the traffic order, ensure the safety of the participants in the demonstration, and ensure the passage of the participants in the demonstration, such as bypassing the vehicles going through the luminous bridge.

C) Other factors to be considered.

(1) Scale and mode of demonstration participants

The instant demonstration was held without a prior report, and the police could not expect the direction of the participants or the direction of the demonstration. However, on April 18, 2015, citizens participated in the demonstration with more than 10,000 people, and the demonstration was conducted in a way that occupies the entire lane in a broad area.

(2) The direction of the participants in the demonstration and the possibility of collision;

As examined in the above 1)(A)(2)(b) of the organizer including Defendant 1, as of April 11, 2015, as seen in the above 2)(A)(2)(b), as seen in the above 2)(a)(2)(b) of the demonstration, Defendant 1 agreed to proceed toward the direction of the Cheongdae for the purpose of linking human belts on April 18, 2015. On April 18, 2015, Defendant 1 made it clear that it was the main purpose of the demonstration. As such, there was a conflict between the police forces to prevent access within 100 meters from the boundary of the Cheongdaedae-dae, which is an absolute prohibition zone, and about 10,000 demonstration, which seeks to enter the direction of the Cheongdae-dae-dae, thereby causing damage to the citizens’ property, health, and safety.

(3) The need to install police stations using police forces, safety fences, tea walls, and gas sprayers.

On April 18, 2015, participants of a demonstration took place in the direction of the luminous plaza with a part of the lane after the statement that "by the luminous square" was made on April 16:35, 2015, and the police was installed in the direction of the participants of the demonstration, but the participants of the demonstration continued to go beyond the polyslass, disregarding the police warning and failing to go beyond the polyslass. In light of the circumstances and the situation that the participants of the demonstration clearly expressed the aim of carrying out activities in the direction of the Cheongsium, it is objectively recognized that the act subject to criminal punishment at the time of the police's decision is likely to be done in the front, and there is a concern that if the participants fail to stop the act, it would immediately cause harm to human life and body, or cause serious damage to property, and subsequent to the demolition of the police demonstration, it is recognized that there was no way to remove the participants of the demonstration from the front of the Seoul Police Station with the direction of installing the police pen and the direction to stop.

(4) Necessity of dissolution using a sprink

The police sent a warning to the participants of the demonstration in the vicinity of the Sejong Culture Center that the participants in the demonstration exercised violence and damaged safety fences, etc., etc., and the demonstration took place in a clearly violent aspect, the police sent a warning to the participants of the demonstration, and then ordered the participants of the demonstration to use the sprinks, etc. after giving a warning to the participants of the demonstration.

4. Whether general traffic obstruction is constituted;

A. Relevant legal principles

The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts which make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Moreover, general traffic obstruction is not so abstract dangerous crime that traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic obstruction is not practically impossible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). If it is considerably difficult to pass through the road as provided in Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act or if it is considerably difficult to pass through the road as provided in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, it shall be deemed that the reported general traffic obstruction or demonstration is considerably difficult to pass through the road as provided in Article 21(1) of the Criminal Act, and thus, it shall be established within the scope of the reported general traffic flow or smooth traffic flow order and public order.

B. Determination

1) Whether the Defendants’ establishment of a general traffic obstruction on July 24, 2014 constitutes a crime of interference with the general traffic.

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, it is recognized that the defendants, in collusion with the participants in an assembly, could not pass through the road or made it considerably difficult for them to pass through the road by significantly deviating from the reported scope.

A) The national countermeasure conference with the Defendants as the chairperson of the Joint Operation Committee reported outdoor assembly and its progress to the front side of the Dong-gun of the luminous square, starting from Seoul Square on July 24, 2014, and going to the front of the Dong-gun of the Lee In-Ja-gun.

B) The Defendants: (a) on May 9, 2014, May 17, 2014; (b) on May 31, 2014; (b) on May 31, 2014; and (c) on July 12, 2014, the participants in the assembly moved along the front lane in the assemblies and demonstrations for the enactment of the Special Act; and (b) on July 12, 2014, it was possible for the participants of the assembly to depart from the front lane in Seoul square; and (b) on the website of the National Countermeasures Council, the Defendants did not take any particular measures to ensure traffic order.

C) The participants in the assembly moved along the lane from Seoul Square to the ethical square without disregarding polyslass and going through the ethrogate zone, and thereafter, the conference was convened without occupying the two lanes prior to the direction of the school building.

2) Whether Defendant 2’s establishment of a general traffic obstruction on August 15, 2014

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence admitted as follows, it is recognized that the defendant conspired with the participants in an assembly to obstruct the passage of the road, thereby making it impossible or considerably difficult for them to pass through the road.

A) On August 13, 2014, the National Countermeasure Meeting with the Defendant’s Chairman of the Joint Operation Committee submitted to the head of Seoul Southern Police Station a report stating that “The meeting shall be held at the Seoul Square from August 15, 2014 to the 11:00 to 22:00, the meeting shall be held.”

B) According to documentary evidence photographs, it is recognized that the defendant occupied most of the roads on which the vehicle is in progress with the participants in the assembly and operated by the defendant.

3) Whether Defendants’ establishment of interference with general traffic on April 11, 2015, and April 16, 2015 constitutes interference with general traffic.

As seen above, as seen in the above legal principles and Articles 3.2.2 and 3.2(b) and 3.2(2) of the above, it is recognized that the Defendants conspired with the participants in the assembly to hold each assembly and demonstration on April 11, 2015, and moved along the front lane with the participants in the assembly, and the participants in the assembly moved along with the participants in the assembly and moved along the front lane. Since the launch of the vehicle, the vehicle wall was installed after the participants moved along the vehicle. There was no reason to require the participants who moved along the front lane to pass through the delivery or to take measures to maintain traffic order. Rather, in light of the circumstances where the Defendants urged the Defendants to go along the direction of the audience, it is recognized that the Defendants led the participants in the assembly to make it impossible or significantly difficult to pass through the road by interfering with road traffic.

4) Whether Defendant 1’s establishment of a general traffic obstruction crime on April 18, 2015

As seen above, as seen in the above legal principles and 3.b.3 above, the defendant's 4.16 solidarity, which is a standing operating member, announced in advance on April 18, 2015 that he would hold the instant demonstration without any prior report, and held the instant demonstration without a prior report. Since the participants in the assembly moved along a lane, it was installed after the participants started to drive along the lane. The defendant occupied the road along with the participants in the demonstration, and did not take any measures to seek the participants to use the road for delivery or to maintain traffic order. Rather, in light of the circumstances, the defendant organized the demonstration at the luminous square and arranged the demonstration in the light of the purport that "at the same time, many sections, including the front democratic movement of the front line, etc., were born," and it is recognized that the fact that the defendant conspired with the participants in the assembly, thereby obstructing the passage of the road or making it significantly difficult for them to pass through the road.

5. Whether the crime of defamation by Defendant 1 was established

A. In the crime of defamation, whether “a statement of fact” is “a statement of fact”

1) Relevant legal principles

“Public allegation of fact” in the crime of defamation refers to a report or statement of specific past or present facts in comparison to an expression of opinion containing a value judgment or evaluation. The expression “public allegation of fact” refers to a statement that can be proved by evidence, and the expression should so maintain the body of a specific person so as to be likely to infringe on the social value or evaluation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Do696, Jun. 28, 1994; 201Do6904, Aug. 18, 201). Meanwhile, it should be deemed that the context is 70 times or public allegation of facts, other than a simple expression, or a mere statement or statement of a third party, referring to a statement of fact 97; 207Do6979, Nov. 27, 2008; 2007Do9797, etc.). It should also be deemed that the expression or statement of fact was made in a way that indicates that the fact can exist in light of the overall expression.

2) Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged in accordance with each evidence of the court below in light of the legal principles and the circumstances that the defendant did not make efforts to confirm whether the suspicion is true, and the majority of citizens did not have a very negative perception of narcotics, it can be deemed that the defendant expressed the following facts: “The President outside the public prosecution was at the time of the occurrence of the Sewol ferry, or was under the Stockholm procedure, and was unable to perform his duties for 7 hours after the occurrence of the Sewol ferry,” and thus, it can be deemed that the defendant knew the fact that “the President outside the public prosecution was at the time of the occurrence of the Sewol ferry, was unable to perform his duties appropriately for 7 hours after the occurrence of the Sewol ferry incident.”

가) 피고인은 국민대책회의의 공동운영위원장이자 4ㆍ16 연대의 상임운영위원으로서 앞서 살펴본 바와 같이 세월호 참사 관련 집회ㆍ시위를 주최하고, 이에 적극적으로 참여하였다. 수사기관은 판시『2015고합690』범죄사실과 같은 혐의로 2015. 6. 19. 피고인, 피고인 2, 4ㆍ16 연대 사무실 등을 압수ㆍ수색하였고, 피고인은 압수ㆍ수색이 이뤄진 당일 세월호 참사 관련 집회ㆍ시위에 대한 경찰의 대응 방식 및 검찰의 압수ㆍ수색 행위를 비판하고, 세월호 참사의 진상을 규명하고 책임자 처벌을 위해 정부와 맞서 싸울 것을 다짐하는 내용의 기자회견을 하였다. 한편 피고인과 피고인 2 등에 대한 압수ㆍ수색 절차는 위와 같은 피고인의 발언 이후에도 계속되었고, 피고인은 압수ㆍ수색 절차가 진행 중이던 2015. 6. 22. ‘① 피고인과 피고인 2, 4ㆍ16 연대 사무실, ○○○○○○ 사무실, △△△△△△△△△연대 사무실에 대한 압수ㆍ수색 사실 언급, ② 세월호 관련 집회ㆍ시위에서 캡사이신, 살수차를 사용한 경찰에 대한 항의, ③ 집회ㆍ시위 현장에서 이미 채증을 하였음에도 위와 같은 압수ㆍ수색을 하는 것에 대한 항의, ④ 이 사건 발언, ⑤ 세월호 참사의 진실을 밝히기 위해 시행령을 폐기하고 진상규명특별위원회가 제대로 작동하게 해야 한다는 주장, ⑥ 그렇지 않으면 계속하여 싸울 것이고 4ㆍ16 연대를 발족할 것이라는 선언’의 순서로 기자회견을 하였다. 한편 이 사건 발언은 ‘㉠ 청와대에 대한 압수ㆍ수색이 필요하다. ㉡ 세월호 참사 발생 이후 7시간 동안 공소외인 대통령의 소재가 불분명하다. ㉢ 국민들이 7시간 동안 공소외인 대통령이 마약을 하거나 보톡스 시술을 받은 것이 아닌가하는 의혹을 제기하고 있다. ㉣ 청와대를 뒤져서 마약이 있는지, 보톡스를 했는지를 확인해보고 싶다’는 내용으로 이루어져있다.

나) 피고인은 국민들이 제기한 의혹을 소개하는 방식(㉢)으로 이 사건 발언을 하였다. 따라서 이는 ‘공소외인 대통령이 세월호 참사 발생 무렵 마약을 하거나 보톡스 시술을 받았다’라는 표현이나 ‘개인적으로 피해자 공소외인 대통령이 세월호 참사 발생 무렵 마약을 하거나 보톡스 시술을 받은 것이 아닌지 의심된다’라는 표현에 비해 간접적이고, 우회적인 표현이다. 그러나 ‘공소외인 대통령이 세월호 참사 발생 무렵 마약을 하거나 보톡스를 하였는지 여부’는 증거에 의해 증명이 가능한 사실이고, 피고인은 방송사 기자회견이라는 공식적인 방법으로 위와 같은 발언을 하였으며, 피해자 공소외인 대통령에게 ‘위 7시간 동안의 행적에 관한 의혹을 해명할 것’을 요구하지 않은 채 단지 세월호 참사 발생 이후 7시간 동안 피해자 공소외인 대통령의 소재가 분명하지 않았다는 발언(㉡)에 더하여 피고인이 소개한 의혹의 내용이 사실일 가능성이 있음을 전제로 ‘청와대를 압수ㆍ수색하여 마약이 있는지, 보톡스가 있는지 뒤져야한다’는 발언(㉣)을 하였을 뿐이다. 이러한 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고인은 단순히 위와 같은 의혹이 존재한다는 사실을 소개하거나 이에 대한 해명을 요구하는 차원을 넘어 ‘공소외인 대통령이 세월호 참사 발생 무렵 마약을 하거나, 보톡스를 하였고, 이로 인하여 세월호 참사 발생 이후 7시간 동안 적절하게 직무를 수행하지 못하였다’는 사실을 암시한 것으로 볼 수 있다.

C) On April 16, 2014, a large number of media companies around August 2014, which were the Nonindicted Party prior to the instant transfer, submitted three written reports and seven-time wire reports from the Security Office at intervals of 20 to 30 minutes, and the president received 11-time written reports from the Security Office. Since the president is accompanied by the executive branch and the head of the State is the head of the State, the president’s location and the head of the State does not always disclose to anyone the position of the president to the public. Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to present objective and old material supporting materials that exceed the simple level of novels in making the instant remarks.

B. Whether an individual can be a victim of defamation under the Criminal Act

A) Relevant legal principles

Matters pertaining to the decision-making or performance of duties by the government or a state agency must always be subject to surveillance and criticism by the people. Such surveillance and criticism can only be performed normally when the freedom of press reports is sufficiently guaranteed, and the government or a state agency cannot be a victim of defamation under the Criminal Act. Thus, even if the social evaluation of public officials who participated in the decision-making or performance of duties can be somewhat lowered due to press reports, the contents of the report cannot be deemed as defamation of public officials immediately due to the report unless it is evaluated that the contents of the report are considerably malicious or highly rush attack against public officials, unless it is evaluated that the report is considerably unreasonable (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do17237, Sept. 2, 201).

According to such legal doctrine, the State or government agency cannot be a victim of the crime of defamation under the Criminal Act, and the criticism against the State, etc. cannot be a victim of defamation against a public official. However, the personal right of a public official who is the subject of fundamental rights is protected within a certain scope based on Article 10 of the Constitution, etc. Therefore, in a case where the personal right of a public official was infringed due to an act of expression that is in bad faith or extremely rush, which goes beyond the limit of evaluation as being considerably unreasonable as the subject of fundamental rights, legal liability, such as liability for defamation under the Criminal Act, should be established against the expressive act. In addition, since the President has a personality as a private person holding the personality and becomes the subject of reputation as a private person and has a status as a servant of the public interest as a civil servant, the President is also the subject of personal rights in relation to the status as a private person (see, e.g., Constitutional Court Decisions 2007Hun-Ma700, Jan. 17, 2008; 2015Do94969

B) Determination

The President of the Republic of Korea constitutes a representative official figure, and has the authority to give all instructions necessary for structural activities (Article 11(1) of the Government Organization Act). The issue of whether the President performed his/her duties properly at the time of the incident falls under an official review. However, as seen earlier, the statement in this case constitutes a public question. However, as seen earlier, the statement in this case is expressed by the Defendant without any reasonable ground during the process of resisting the search and seizure against the Defendant, and is expressed by the Nonindicted Party, without any reasonable ground, that the Defendant unilaterally sold the Nonindicted Party’s individual, who was the Defendant, and without any justifiable reason, expressed that he/she did not commit a criminal act like narcotics, and raises suspicions of doubt that he/she left the port. Moreover, the Defendant did not take measures to confirm the authenticity of the statement in this case (No.). Accordingly, the Defendant’s expression of the Defendant through the statement in this case (no.S.) is deemed to have considerably lost reasonableness as a malicious or extremely rush attack against the Nonindicted Party. Accordingly, it constitutes defamation against the Nonindicted Party.

Reasons for sentencing

1. The scope of punishment by law;

(a) Defendant 1: Imprisonment for 3 years to 45 years;

(b) Defendant 2: Imprisonment for not more than 15 years;

2. Application of the sentencing criteria;

A. Defendant 1

1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

The sentencing criteria are not set.

(ii) each general traffic obstruction;

The sentencing criteria are not set.

3) Each special obstruction of performance of official duties

[Determination of Punishment] Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties / Force of Obstruction of Official Duties (Type 1)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Cases where the power of an organization or a large number of people is shown or dangerous objects are carried (type 1), or where there are many public officials who have suffered damage (type 1).

[Scope of Recommendation] One year to six years of imprisonment (at least two special persons exist, i.e., heavy and special persons). Therefore, the maximum of sentence range recommended in the sentencing guidelines shall be aggravated to 1/2)

4) Crimes of causing bodily injury to each special obstruction of performance

[Determination of Punishment] Injury or injury resulting from a Special Obstruction of Public Duty (Type 1) caused by a death or injury resulting from a special obstruction of public duty

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Cases where the power of an organization or a large number of people is shown or dangerous objects are carried (type 1), or where there are many public officials who have suffered damage (type 1).

[Scope of Recommendation] Three to nine years of imprisonment (at least two special persons exist, i.e., heavy and special persons). Therefore, the maximum of sentence range recommended in the sentencing guidelines shall be aggravated to 1/2)

(v)an injury to each special goods for public use;

[Determination of Punishment] Nullity or Destruction of Public Articles (Type 1)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: In the case of showing the power of an organization or a large number of people or carrying dangerous objects.

[Scope of Recommendation] One year to four years (Aggravated Field)

6) Scope of final recommendation: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than three years (limited to the lower limit of the sentencing criteria for crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set according to the guidelines for multiple crimes, given that the sentencing criteria are not set for each violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and each general traffic obstruction is not set.)

B. Defendant 2

1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

The sentencing criteria are not set.

(ii) each general traffic obstruction;

The sentencing criteria are not set.

3) Each special obstruction of performance of official duties

[Determination of Punishment] Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties / Force of Obstruction of Official Duties (Type 1)

[Special Aggravation] Aggravations: Cases where the power of an organization or a large number of people is shown or dangerous objects are carried (type 1), or where there are many public officials who have suffered damage (type 1).

[Scope of Recommendation] One year to six years of imprisonment (at least two special persons exist, i.e., heavy and special persons). Therefore, the maximum of sentence range recommended in the sentencing guidelines shall be aggravated to 1/2)

4) Scope of final recommendation: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year (limited to the lower limit of the sentencing criteria for crimes for which the sentencing criteria are set according to the sentencing criteria for multiple crimes, since the sentencing criteria are not set for each violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and each general traffic obstruction order are not set);

3. Determination of sentence: Defendant 1 shall be sentenced to three years of imprisonment, four years of suspended sentence, and Defendant 2 shall be sentenced to three years of suspended sentence of imprisonment; and

There is no disagreement that the freedom of assembly or demonstration should be guaranteed to the maximum extent possible without emphasizing the contents of Article 21 of the Constitution. However, the freedom of assembly or demonstration should be in harmony with other legal interests in its exercise with the public safety and order, legal peace, etc., due to the nature of collective action. As can be seen, in harmony with the freedom of assembly or demonstration and other legal interests, the organizer of an assembly or demonstration shall inform the police and other national agencies of the contents, size, and method of the assembly or demonstration, etc. of the lawful and peaceful assembly or demonstration through prior report, and seek cooperation to ensure peaceful assembly or demonstration is the starting point of such efforts. On the other hand, if the organizer of an assembly or demonstration holds an assembly or demonstration through legitimate procedures, and the organizer of an assembly or demonstration has made an advance or ex post facto efforts to carry out a lawful and peaceful assembly or demonstration, the State agency, such as the police, etc., shall make best efforts to ensure that the assembly or demonstration is being carried out or is not carried out in peace.

Although Defendants had already been punished for the same kind of crime, the event of an assembly or demonstration, non-compliance with a dispersion order, general traffic obstruction, etc., which led to considerable damage to the residents around the place of assembly or demonstration, thereby causing significant obstacles to traffic communication for a considerable period of time. Defendant 2 conspired with the participants in the assembly to assault police force in performing duties, and Defendant 1 conspired with the participants in the assembly to impair the utility of public goods and to injure the police force carrying out duties, thereby causing injury. Although the purpose of the assembly or demonstration is legitimate, if the means and methods leading up to it violate the law and principles, such act would undermine the value of democracy. Such circumstances are considered as an unfavorable sentencing factor against the Defendants.

However, there are circumstances that may be considered in the motive of committing the crime, such as preventing the recurrence of similar witnesses through the investigation of the truth of the Sewol ferry, and conducting activities to build a safe society, with respect to the bereaved family members who lost their reputation and were suffering from mental pain due to the Defendants’ loss of a sudden witness who was unable to win immediately after the Sewol ferry. Such circumstances shall be considered as factors for sentencing favorable to the Defendants. Furthermore, the number of the Defendants’ participation in each of the instant crimes, the degree, and the role of the Defendants, shall be determined differently depending on the number of the Defendants’ participation in, and the degree of, and the role of, the instant crimes.

In addition, the defendants' age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, circumstances after the crime, and all the sentencing conditions specified in the arguments of this case shall be determined as ordered by considering the following factors.

The acquittal portion

1. Defendants’ violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act following the organizing of an unreported demonstration on July 24, 2014

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report on it to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

At around 20:30 on July 24, 2014, Defendants, the Joint Operating Chairperson of the National Countermeasure Committee, held 5,00 or more members of the National Countermeasure Committee in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, with the view to holding and attending Nonindicted Party 133 Round culture festivals, and Defendant 1 believed that there is no such precedent. However, the government opened a special law for the Republic of Korea’s judicial system. We do not have any right to move into 5-lane building. We need to move into 1-2-2-4-2-2-4-2-4-2-3-2-4-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-4-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-2-3-3-3-4-3-2-3-3-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-4-3-2-3-2-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-3-4-3-4-4-

As a result, Defendants conspired to hold a demonstration which was not reported to the chief of the competent police station.

B. Relevant legal principles

In a case where an outdoor assembly or demonstration was held beyond the degree of identity with the reported outdoor assembly or demonstration, it does not constitute a violation of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act regarding a case where the outdoor assembly or demonstration was held without filing a report. However, in a situation where its identity is maintained, it constitutes “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported purpose, date, time, place, method, etc.” under Article 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. In this case, even if the organizer who reported the outdoor assembly or demonstration deviates from the scope of the reported purpose, date, time, place, method, etc., and without permission, it does not constitute an act of holding an outdoor assembly or demonstration without permission, since the organizer who reported the outdoor assembly or demonstration went beyond the scope of the reported purpose, time, place, and method, etc., and even if the organizer led by the organizer or participating group, the reported outdoor assembly or demonstration took place at first or first, it may be deemed that the reported outdoor assembly or demonstration was replaced with the organizer or participating group, etc., and the reported outdoor assembly or demonstration was held under the pretext of 208.

C. Determination

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone cannot be deemed as having been proven without reasonable doubt that the Defendants held a demonstration without a prior report or held a demonstration beyond the recognition of identity with the prior report by the chief of the competent police station.

1) On July 22, 2014, the National Countermeasure Meeting held by the Defendants as the Chairman of the Joint Operation Committee was submitted to the Seoul Local Police Agency a report on outdoor assembly and demonstration (the Investigation Record No. 749 of the Investigation Record) stating, under the name of Non-Indicted 137, that “The Defendant’s participation of 8,000 staff members, etc. from July 24, 2014 to July 24, 2014 by the staff members of the Seoul Local Police Agency (8,00 staff members, etc. of the Sewol ferry) shall be called for the enactment of the Special Act on the Sewol ferry 200 staff members, etc. from July 24, 2014 to July 23:59.

2) On July 24, 2014, an outdoor assembly was held for the purpose of reporting under the initiative of the National Countermeasure Council from around 20:30, and even after around 22:30, participants took part in the demonstration with the appearance of the “Guarantee of the Truth of the Sewol Ferry” or the “Enactment of the Special Act on the Sewol Ferry”, and there is no circumstance that the organizer, participating group, etc. was changed during the middle.

2. The Defendants’ violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act following the failure to comply with the dispersion order on July 24, 2014

A. Summary of the facts charged

The Defendants were requested to voluntarily dissolve on the grounds of a failure to report, etc., by occupying the same route as that set forth in Article 1(a) on July 24, 2015, with five thousand or more participants in other assemblies, on July 22:30, 2015, in front of the Seoul Central Government Office located in Jung-gu, Seoul, by causing direct and apparent risks to others’ legal interests or public peace and order, resulting in a direct and obvious danger to others’ legal interests or public peace and order.

However, although the participants, including the Defendants, did not comply with the request for voluntary dispersion, and the director of the security division of the Seodaemun Police Station issued the first dispersion order around 23:00 on the same day, around 23:06 on the same day, the second dispersion order at around 23:15 on the same day, the third dispersion order at around 23:25 on the same day, the Defendants did not immediately dissolve.

In addition, as described in subparagraph 1-A(a) above, the Defendants continued to move ahead of the direction of the front of the building in the light of the ethic sign language in light of at least 23:40 on the same day with 1,200 participants in an assembly as described in the foregoing paragraph, and the head of the ethic police station who has been authorized by the head of the ethic police station at the time of the assembly continuously requested voluntary dispersion. On July 25, 2015, the head of the ethic police station at around 00:48, the first dispersion order at around 00:52 on the same day, the second dispersion order at around 00:57 on the same day, the third dispersion order at around 01:20 on the same day, the fourth dispersion order at around 01:20 on the same day, and the fifth dispersion order at around 01:29

Accordingly, the Defendants refused to comply with the legitimate dispersion order by the chief of the police station.

B. Relevant legal principles

Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that “the head of the competent police authority may demand voluntary dispersion of any of the following assemblies or demonstrations within a considerable time and order dispersion if such demand is not complied with.” Article 20(2) provides that “All participants shall immediately dissolve when an assembly or demonstration is ordered to do so under paragraph (1).” As a matter of interpretation of the relevant provision, when the head of the competent police authority issues the dispersion order, he/she must specifically notify whether the cause for dissolution falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do7193, Feb. 9, 2012). Therefore, in cases where the head of the competent police authority did not give specific notice of the cause for dissolution while issuing the dispersion order or ordered dispersion while notifying a justifiable cause, even if not complying with such dispersion order, it cannot be said that Article 20(2) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act has been violated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Do4127, Mar. 13, 2014).

C. Determination

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, any demonstration which was conducted on July 24, 2014 is clearly going beyond the scope of the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. of the prior report, and cannot be deemed to have been conducted beyond the degree of recognition identical to the prior report. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is only acknowledged as having ordered dispersion on the ground of Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (unreported report) and it cannot be deemed as having been proven without reasonable doubt by the chief of the competent police station having ordered dispersion by notifying the Defendants of justifiable cause. Therefore, even if the aforementioned demonstration was prohibited or held without the report, it cannot be deemed that the Defendants’ failure to comply with such order constitutes a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act pursuant to Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the facts charged in this part of the facts charged constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, it should be pronounced not guilty pursuant to the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act. However, as long as it is found that the violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration following the hosting of Unreported Demonstration on July 24, 2014, which is the preliminary facts charged, was convicted of violating the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to the

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. Summary of the facts charged

When Defendant 1 conspiredd with Nonindicted 6,00 participants in the name of Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 24, Nonindicted 25, Nonindicted 26, Nonindicted 27, Nonindicted 28, Nonindicted 30, Nonindicted 32, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 34, and Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 34, Nonindicted 47, and Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 46, Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 444, Nonindicted 45, and Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 44, and Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 44, Nonindicted 44, and Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 1, Nonindicted 4, Nonindicted 45, and Nonindicted 47, Nonindicted 4, and Nonindicted 48, Nonindicted 46, and Nonindicted 5, Nonindicted 44, and Nonindicted 36, and 37, etc.

2. Relevant legal principles

The withdrawal of the indictment by the method of the modification of indictment can be limited to some of the facts charged within the extent that the identity of the indictment is recognized. As such, where several facts charged in the indictment are not identical and there are substantive concurrent relationships with each other, it is not the method of the modification of indictment in order to withdraw part of the indictment, but the procedure for partial cancellation of the indictment must be followed. In a case where there is a public prosecutor’s request for the whole withdrawal of one of the facts charged in substantive concurrent relations or for the whole exclusion of the defendant from the indictment subject to the indictment, if it is obvious that this is the purpose of revoking the indictment, even if this does not correspond to the application for cancellation of the indictment, it shall be deemed as cancellation of the indictment (see Supreme Court Decision 8Do67, Mar. 22, 198)

3. Determination

According to the records, the following facts are acknowledged. In other words, when the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act as of December 16, 2015, the prosecutor withdrawn the relevant facts charged as to the injury caused by the special obstruction of performance of official duties and the substantial concurrent crimes against the victims as stated in Article 5-D of the 2015 Ma690. This court approved the prosecutor's application for the amendment of the Act on the 5th public trial of this case. On the other hand, the prosecutor applied for the amendment of the Act on the 5th public trial of this case, which is related to the damage of the special public goods as stated in Article 5-D of the 2015 Ma690. The court withdrawn the relevant facts charged, and the court approved the amendment of the Act on the 6th public trial of this case as of December 16, 2015, the prosecutor stated that the withdrawal of the amendment of the Act constitutes cancellation of the indictment in accordance with the judgment on the withdrawal of the amendment of the Act on the 6th public trial of this case.

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes the cancellation of a public prosecution, and thus, this part of the public prosecution is dismissed under Article 328(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

(attached Form omitted)

Judges Dak-si (Presiding Judge)

(1) The facts charged in the instant case indicate that “the Defendants conspired to hold an assembly which is not reported to the chief of the competent police station,” but in light of the content of the facts charged and the intent of the prosecution as indicated in the prosecution on the date of the trial (the indictment of all parts of the outdoor assembly and demonstration) in this part of the facts charged, each of the above facts charged in the instant case is apparent that it is a clerical error in the statement that “unreported assembly and demonstration,” and “the Defendants conspired to hold an outdoor assembly and demonstration which are not reported to the chief of the competent police station,” thereby correcting it ex officio to the extent that it does not disadvantage the Defendant’s right to defense. The following facts are also identical.

In light of the content of the facts charged and the purport of prosecution (the indictment only on the part after the commencement of the indictment) revealed by the prosecution on the date of the prosecution, each of the above facts charged in the instant case clearly stated that “unreported demonstration” and “the Defendant,” under the title of the organizer of the unreported assembly, was clearly erroneous and corrected ex officio to the extent that it does not disadvantage the Defendant’s defense right.

3) Although the facts charged in the instant case are indicated as “72 vehicles for police bus,” according to the evidence of each judgment, the number of Nos. 47 and 47 of the annexed crime sight table (2) overlaps with 48, and the number Nos. 67 and 67 are deemed to overlap with 64 and they are obviously clerical errors, they are corrected to “70 vehicles for police bus,” and the annexed crime sight table (2) Nos. 47 and 67 were deleted.

(4) The facts charged in the instant case clearly indicate that “the Defendants conspired to hold an assembly not reported to the chief of the competent police station,” but in light of the content of the facts charged and the intent of the prosecution on the date of the trial (the indictment of a part after around 22:30 that started), each of the above facts charged in the instant case is a clerical error in the statement that “unreported demonstration” and “the Defendants conspired to hold a demonstration not reported to the chief of the competent police station,” and thus, corrected it ex officio to the extent that it does not disadvantage the Defendant’s defense right.