(b) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

1. Examining the reasoning of Defendant’s appeal in light of the relevant legal principles and the evidence duly admitted, it is justifiable to maintain the first instance judgment that found Defendant guilty of the obstruction of general traffic among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds as indicated in the judgment of the lower court. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation contrary to logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the requirements for the establishment of a obstruction of general traffic or the scope of recognition as a joint principal offender.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by a public prosecutor

A. As to the N’s violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

The court below reversed the judgment of the court of first instance which found the Ner of the facts charged in this case guilty on the ground that there was no evidence of crime regarding the Ner’s violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, such as the reasoning for appeal.

B. According to Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8424, May 1, 2007); Article 11 subparag. 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8424, May 1, 200; hereinafter referred to as the "Court") regarding the violation of Article 10 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Article 23 of the Constitution provides for the following facts: (a) the Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution of 0 U.S. 1 on the grounds that Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Constitution and Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act were inconsistent with the Constitution; (b) the Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution of 10 U.S. 2 on December 31, 2019 on the grounds that the provision of the above Act remains unconstitutional; and (c) the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution of 1 of this case.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il

Chief Justice Lee Ki-taik

Justices Park Jung-hwa