B.General traffic obstruction

2.(a) B

3.(a) C.

Attorney E

A. Grounds for appeal by the Defendants

On May 14, 2009, the Defendants participated in the meeting of this case, which is not an assembly, but an assembly, even if it falls under a family assembly, W of the J-Power K National Countermeasure Committee reported the assembly to the chief of the V police station having jurisdiction over the place where the meeting of this case was held. While the chief of the V police station notified the prohibition of the assembly of this case on the ground that it is obvious that the assembly of this case would pose a direct threat to public safety and order due to collective assault, threat, damage, fire prevention, etc., the above prohibition notification is illegal, and thus, the dispersion order of this case is also unlawful. Nevertheless, the judgment below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal

(b) Grounds for appeal by prosecutors;

The punishment sentenced by the court below (the fine of KRW 700,00,000, the fine of KRW 700,000, KRW 20,000, KRW 30

2. Determination

A. As to the defendants' grounds of appeal

(1) Whether the instant meeting constitutes an assembly

The Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") does not have any definition as to the concept of the assembly itself, but it defines that with respect to a demonstration, it refers to an act of a group of people to proceed with a place where the general public may freely pass, such as roads, squares, parks, etc., or to an act of affecting the opinion of an unspecified number of people or to a pressure by showing power or power (Article 2 Subparag. 2), and in light of the fact that an outdoor assembly is guaranteed and regulated under Article 3 or below, it is subject to guarantee and regulation under the above Act.

An assembly refers to a temporary gathering of a specific or unspecified number of people in a certain place under the purpose of an order to externally express their opinions (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1649, Jul. 9, 2009).

In this case, according to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendants and 40 members of the K Korean National Countermeasure Committee and the bereaved family members of the case, etc. at the meeting of this case as follows: "the prosecutor's office is open to the public, i.e., the 3,000 pages of the investigation records; "the prosecutor's office open to the public 300 pages of the investigation records that the prosecutor reduced to the public; "the 3,000 pages of the investigation records that the prosecutor reduced to the public;" "K J Jin-si k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k k."

(2) Whether the dispersion order of this case is legitimate

Even if the notification of prohibition of this case is unlawful, the organizer of the assembly may raise an objection to the head of the immediately higher-level police office within 10 days from the date of receipt of the notification of prohibition (Article 9(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act); and the head of the higher-level police office shall make a ruling within 24 hours from the date of receipt of the notification of prohibition; and if the notification of prohibition is not sent within this period, the notification of prohibition by the head of the competent police office is retroactively null and void (Article 9(2) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act). If the notification of prohibition is judged unlawful or unfair or becomes null and void, the requester may hold the assembly or demonstration as originally reported, and if he comes to fall within the time due to the notification of prohibition, etc., he may hold the assembly by reporting it to the head of the first higher-level police office within 24 hours prior to the commencement of the assembly or demonstration (Article 9(3) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act). Thus, as long as the procedure of prompt relief is provided, the Defendants’ allegation that this part of this case is unlawful.

B. Regarding the prosecutor's grounds for appeal

In full view of the following circumstances: (a) the developments leading up to the instant assembly, and all other circumstances that form the conditions for sentencing as shown in the records, such as the Defendants’ age, character and conduct, environment, motive and means of the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too uneasible and unreasonable. Therefore, the Prosecutor’s assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal by the defendants and the prosecutor is without merit, and all of them are dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition (However, since Article 20 (2) 2, Article 8 (1) 1, and Article 5 (1) 2 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure are clearly erroneous statements in Article 20 (2), (1) 2, Article 8 (1) 1, and Article 5 (1) 2 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure among the application of the law of the court below, the correction shall be made ex officio pursuant to

Judges Kim Gin-ju

Suspension of the Judge