A. As to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles regarding ① participation in an outdoor assembly held on May 2, 2015 at the place where the assembly was prohibited on May 2, 2015, Defendant 1’s meetings in which the Defendant participated are “route meeting” and “Act on Assembly and Demonstration” (hereinafter “Act”).

As to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act by participating in an assembly at a place where an outdoor assembly is prohibited under Article 15 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, even if each assembly of this case was in violation of Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the illegality of each assembly of this case constitutes an expressive act acceptable by social norms, and the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act by failing to comply with a dispersion order is not clearly causing direct danger to public safety and order due to the assembly of May 6, 2015, and thus, the dispersion order issued by the police is unlawful, and the Defendant’s act not complying with such dispersion order does not constitute a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. 2) The sentence (70 million won) imposed by the court below against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The above sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

2. Determination

A. Article 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides for any definition as to the concept of the assembly itself, and Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that a group of persons with respect to a demonstration refers to the progress of a place where the general public may freely pass, such as roads, squares, parks, etc., with the common purpose, or the act that affects the opinions of many and unspecified persons or the act of pressureing them (Article 2 subparag. 2 and Article 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act).