A. In fact-finding (the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act) the Defendant merely failed to comply with the order of dissolution due to the police's failure to hear the dispersion order, but the lower court convicted the Defendant, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, by misunderstanding the fact.

B. The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (700,000 won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below on the mistake of facts is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated, that is, it is necessary to strictly interpret the elements of the crime of non-compliance with the dispersion order to guarantee the freedom of assembly and demonstration. However, in light of the nature of the assembly and demonstration in which many people participate and the crime of dispersion is committed, a threat to public peace and order, etc. is established, and it is practically impossible to order all participants of the assembly and demonstration to clearly hear the following facts and circumstances.

In the end, the dispersion order shall be given to the extent that the participants in the assembly and demonstration can be sufficiently aware in the ordinary standards, and it shall not be deemed that all participants in the assembly and demonstration should be informed in a way that can clearly recognize the individual characteristics and all circumstances of the participants in the assembly and demonstration.

In this case, it seems that an order of dispersion was given in a considerable manner in light of the content, method, time, frequency, etc. of the order of dispersion.

The fact that it was conducted several times over a relatively long period (nine hours, nine times of request for voluntary dispersion, seventeen times of order for dispersion), and (2) The period from around 02:00 to around 05:00, the defendant asserts that he participated in a demonstration in a river park, which is the place of assembly.