The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) the police immediately delivered a noise maintenance order without a prior notice or warning (Ⅰ). The Defendant made efforts to smoothly hold a meeting, such as not receiving a noise maintenance order, but lowering the sound studio, etc. The Defendant conducted a noise measurement at the time when the participants play a singing, not at the time of speaking (Ⅱ). The commencement of the assembly of this case was not obstructed by the noise since the work of other companies located in B building was completed at 7:0:0,000, the noise maintenance order of this case was in an inevitable situation for the progress of the cultural system, and was unfair as it infringes the right to assembly and demonstration excessively, and it is difficult to see that the noise maintenance order of this case is seriously damaged to others, and it does not meet the requirements for criminal organization or constitutes a justifiable act (IV).2.2.

A. Article 14(2) of the Act on the Assembly and Demonstration with Respect to Claims I provides that “If the organizer of an assembly or demonstration causes damage to others by generating noise exceeding the noise level set forth in paragraph (1), the captain of the competent police officer may order the organizer of the assembly or demonstration to maintain noise below the level set forth in paragraph (1) or to suspend the use of the loudspeaker, etc., or take necessary measures, such as temporary storage of the loudspeaker, etc.,” and where the organizer of the assembly or demonstration causes damage to others by causing noise in violation of noise level set forth in paragraph (1), the captain of the competent police officer may order the organizer of the assembly or demonstration to stop the use of the loudspeaker, etc. or take necessary measures, such as “the temporary storage of the loudspeaker, etc.”

Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit on a different premise.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the first instance court, the Defendant is Jongno-gu Seoul B building from March 30, 2016 to 21:50 on the same day.