[2] The meaning of "Assembly" subject to guarantee and regulation under the former Assembly and Demonstration Act

[3] In a case where the defendant held an outdoor assembly over about 25 minutes in a way that interferes with the progress of a vehicle of a political party after holding 10 or more members of a specific organization for the relief of urging the legislation of the past liquidation before the representative of a political party's own choice and distributing out the press dogs, the case holding that the assembly constitutes an "meeting" subject to the duty to report under the former Assembly and Demonstration Act

[2] The purpose of the former Assembly and Demonstration Act (amended by Act No. 8424 of May 11, 2007) is to ensure a legitimate assembly and demonstration to the maximum extent possible, and protect citizens from unlawful demonstration, thereby properly in harmony with the guarantee of the right to assembly and demonstration and public peace and order (Article 1). The concept of the assembly itself does not have any definition provision as to a demonstration refers to an act of a grouping people to proceed with a place where the general public can freely pass through, such as a road, plaza, park, etc. with common purpose, or to an act of exerting influence on the opinion of an unspecified number of people or under restraint by showing power or power (Article 2 subparag. 2) and Article 3 below, and in light of the fact that an outdoor assembly is guaranteed and regulated under the above Act, the term "an assembly subject to security and regulation" refers to an act of gathering an opinion of a specific or a large number of people to the general public and to a certain place outside the country.

[3] In a case where the defendant held an outdoor assembly over about 25 minutes in a way that interferes with the progress of the vehicle of the representative of a political party after taking out 10 members of a specific organization for the relief of urging the legislation of the past liquidation before the representative of a political party's own choice and distributing out the press dogs, the case holding that the assembly constitutes an "meeting" subject to the duty to report under the former Assembly and Demonstration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8424 of May 11, 2007)

1. The freedom of assembly has an essential function for the realization of democracy. However, if it is a freedom of expression in a collective form without filing a prior report, situations where it is impossible to properly express the intent to deliver it through an assembly can be punished by competition. Furthermore, since the exercise of the freedom of assembly entails multiple collective actions, conflicts may arise between participants in an assembly or third parties in an assembly due to the nature of collective action. It cannot be ruled out that serious danger may arise with respect to the legal interests of third parties, such as serious traffic congestion caused by an assembly or infringement of peacefulity, etc. Thus, the former Assembly and Demonstration Act (amended by Act No. 8424, May 11, 2007; hereinafter “former Assembly and Demonstration Act”) provides that an outdoor assembly is exempt from reporting a certain matter to the chief of the competent police station in advance (Article 6(1)), and thus, it cannot be said that there is a violation of the duty of the chief of the competent police station to report it to the head of the competent police station or to protect the interests of the community by being declared in advance 200.

Furthermore, the purpose of the former Assembly and Demonstration Act is to properly harmonize the rights of assembly and demonstration with the public peace and order by guaranteeing a legitimate assembly and demonstration as much as possible and protecting citizens from unlawful demonstration (Article 1). With respect to the concept of the assembly itself, although there is no definition provision as to the demonstration, it is defined that the group of people with common purposes proceed with a place where the general public can freely pass, such as a road, plaza, park, etc., for the purpose of common use, affect the opinion of an unspecified number of people or are under restraint (Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the same Act). In light of the fact that an outdoor assembly is guaranteed and regulated under Article 3 of the same Act, the assembly subject to security and regulation under the above Act refers to "the assembly that a specific or unspecified number of people form their common opinions and temporarily gather at a certain place under the purpose of expressing them externally" (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2528, Nov. 22, 1983; 2008Do6348, Jun. 2008).

2. 원심은 그 채택 증거에 의하여, “ (단체 명칭 1 생략)”의 공동집행위원장인 피고인은, 2004년 12월경 열린우리당에서는 민간인학살 진상규명, 군의문사 진상규명 등을 위한 통합입법을 발의하여 입법화를 시도함에 반해, 한나라당에서는 학술연구에 의한 진상규명을 주장하며 입법에 의한 진상규명에 다소 회의적인 입장을 표하고 있을 무렵, 위 입법화를 촉구하고자 “ (단체 명칭 2 생략)”, “ (단체 명칭 3 생략)” 등 회원들과 함께 국회 앞에서 이른바 ‘과거사법’ 제정을 촉구하며 연일 농성을 전개하여 왔고, 2005. 2. 17.경에는 “ (단체 명칭 1 생략)” 소속 회원들 약 300여 명과 함께 한나라당사 앞에서 시위하면서 한나라당 대표 박근혜의 면담을 요청하였으나 면담이 이루어지지 않았던 사실, 피고인은 위 집회 종료 후 위 소속회원 일부와 함께 위 국회 농성장으로 돌아와 논의한 끝에 같은 달 18일 새벽에 한나라당 대표 박근혜의 사택으로 가서 ‘과거사법’ 입법에 관한 의견을 표명하고 박근혜와의 면담을 추진하기로 결의한 다음, 관할 경찰서장에 대하여 신고하지 아니하고, 소속 회원 10여 명과 함께 2005. 2. 18. 06:00경 한나라당 대표 박근혜의 자택 앞에 집결한 사실, 위 집회에서 참석회원들은 “박근혜는 과거청산에 동참하라.”, “박근혜는 과거청산법 제정 가로막지 말라.”는 문구가 기재된 천을 착용한 채, “유족은 국민이 아니냐?, 과거사법 제정에 동참하라.”는 구호를 외치고, 피고인은 미리 불러 모은 기자 20여 명에게 미리 작성해 놓은 기자회견문을 배포한 사실, 이윽고 위 박근혜가 출근을 위해 차량을 타고 차고에서 나와 집 앞 도로로 진입하자 일부 회원들은 위 차량을 가로막고 차량 보닛 부분에 올라타거나 차 앞 길바닥에 드러누워 “차라리 나를 밟고 가라.”, “죽이고 가라.”고 외치는 등의 방법으로 약 25분에 걸쳐 집회를 주최한 사실 등을 인정한 다음, 피고인이 개최한 위와 같은 집회는 구 집시법 제6조 제1항 에 규정된 사전 신고의무의 대상이 되는 옥외집회에 해당된다고 판단하였다.

Examining the facts acknowledged by the court below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below's finding the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case based on the above judgment can be accepted as just, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to interpretation of the former Act

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)