The part of the judgment of the court below of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance against the Defendants shall be reversed.

Defendant

B. Imprisonment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. According to Article 13(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, a line of order maintenance should be set to the minimum extent necessary to protect an assembly and demonstration and to maintain public order. In this case, setting the line of order maintenance as a delivery cannot be deemed to have been set to the minimum extent to maintain public order on the condition that it is difficult to observe in light of the size of the participant of the demonstration, the width of delivery, the situation of transportation at the time, etc. As such, since it constitutes an illegal good faith to maintain public order that infringes on fundamental rights regarding assembly and demonstration under the Constitution, the violation of the Act on Each Assembly and Demonstration on the grounds of such invasion cannot be established.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Each sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (for Defendant A, for Defendant A, for the first instance court: 2 years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for April: 1 year; 2 years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for Defendant B; 2 years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the first instance court; 2 years of a suspended sentence of June: imprisonment for the first instance court; 2 years of a suspended sentence of community service order 120 hours; 3 years of a suspended sentence of June): imprisonment for the second instance court; 1 year and six years of a suspended sentence of imprisonment for the second instance court) are too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the part of the judgment of the court below, the judgment of the court below as to the defendants' misunderstanding of the facts or misunderstanding of the legal principles is 1) The defendant A is the head of the branch office of D Nowon-gu Busan, and the head of the organization of the branch office of D Nowon-do, Busan.

On July 1, 2010, the Defendants decided to hold a strike and related assemblies at the workplace affiliated with the Busan Metropolitan City Busan Metropolitan City Branch in accordance with the resolution of the D Nowon-gu's executive body, which was conducted on July 1, 201 to ensure the implementation of the system of exemption from working hours, to claim the level of full-time officers of the existing union, wage, etc., to take part in the entire strike.

A) The Defendants are the Busan Coastal Zone around E 14:00.