집회및시위에관한법률위반
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
1. The fact that the Defendants were dissatisfied with the lower judgment on November 16, 2017 and filed an appeal against the Defendants, and Defendant A was served with the lower court on January 9, 2018, and Defendant B was served with the notice of receipt of each of the relevant records of trial on December 6, 2017 but failed to submit each of the reasons for appeal to this court within 20 days from the receipt of the notice of receipt of each of the records of trial on December 6, 2017 is clear in the record, and there is no reason for appeal even in the petition of appeal, and there is no reason for ex officio examination on the records.
[In the summary of the oral argument submitted by the Defendants as of April 2, 2018 after the closure of the oral argument at the trial, the Defendants asserted that the Defendants’ act in the facts charged in the instant case constitutes an assembly on religion as stipulated in Article 15 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly Act”) and thus, it is not necessary to report under Article 6 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.
However, this can not be a legitimate reason for appeal since it was filed after the lapse of the reasons for appeal.
On the other hand, the court below rejected the Defendants’ assertion on the same assertion in the court below on the grounds of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, and held that each of the instant attempts cannot be deemed an assembly regarding religion, which is exempt from the application of the duty to report under Article 15 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.
Even if the judgment of the court below is examined closely by comparison with the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendants.
[.]
2. Determination on the prosecutor’s appeal
A. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the lower court’s punishment (the suspended sentence of one million won by each of the Defendants) is too unhutiled and unreasonable.
B. In determining the punishment against the Defendants, the lower court did not have any record of punishment except for the punishment imposed once on Defendant A for a crime of immigration offense in 2014, and Defendant A.