1. In full view of the constitutional value and function of the freedom of assembly, the constitutional spirit that declared the prohibition of permission for assembly, the purport of the prior report on outdoor assemblies and demonstrations under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), etc., the report is significant in providing specific information about assembly to an administrative office to cooperate in the maintenance of public order, and it shall not be changed into an application for permission for assembly. Thus, solely on the ground that the report was not filed, it shall not be readily concluded that the outdoor assembly or demonstration exceeds the protection of the Constitution and is not allowed to hold the assembly or demonstration.

Therefore, even if Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not provide for separate dispersion requirements as an outdoor assembly or demonstration subject to a dispersion order, it may be ordered to dissolve pursuant to the above provision only when the outdoor assembly or demonstration outside the house clearly poses a direct danger to the legal interests of others or public peace and order, and only when the order of dispersion meeting such requirements is not complied with, it may be punished pursuant to Article 24 subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

The Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6388 Decided April 19, 2012 (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Do6388, Apr. 19, 2012). The lower court recognized the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and determined that, at the time of each dispersion order as indicated in the facts charged of the instant case, an assembly or demonstration against the Defendants clearly resulted in a direct danger

On the grounds that it is difficult to see that there is no proof of crime, the judgment of the first instance that acquitted each of the Defendants was affirmed.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the grounds of appeal.