A. Defendant B merely conducted a one person’s demonstration with a ticket, and Defendant A did not participate in the Defendant B’s one person’s demonstration to protect Defendant B and collect evidence. As such, the Defendants’ act did not constitute an outdoor assembly necessary for reporting. As such, the lower court convicted the Defendants by misunderstanding of facts, thereby convicting them.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the Defendants (the suspended sentence of each fine of KRW 500,000) is too unfilled and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Article 2 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that “An outdoor assembly means an assembly in a place where there is no ceiling or all sides of the Defendants’ assertion of fact is closed.” Here, the assembly can be defined as “temporary gathering at a certain place for the purpose of externally expressing an opinion by forming a common opinion by a specific or unspecified number of people,” and the assembly can be seen as an assembly subject to the regulation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act even in cases where two people gather together (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do11381, May 24, 2012). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the Defendants were engaged in activities, such as demonstration against D religious organization,” and the Defendants’ activities against the Defendants’ parking from “EM” to the extent that they were subject to regulation on Defendant A’s parking,” and the plan against Defendant A’s parking of the above vehicle was located in the vicinity of Defendant B’s order to regulate Defendant A’s parking.