All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts (hereinafter “Act on Assembly and Demonstration”)

(1) The Defendant, while taking part in the initial stage due to the old-age relationship, was convicted of a mistake of fact and a mistake of fact, even though the Defendant went away from the high-speed, such as walking alone before and after coming to the section that the Prosecutor claims to be called an assembly prohibition zone (within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly Party) or stopping a short-term conversation, he was convicted of the Defendant.

(2) The lower court held that the Defendant participated in an assembly or demonstration at a place within 100 meters from the wall of the National Assembly building, and violated Article 11 of the Assembly Act. However, the purport of Article 11 of the above Act is to interpret that the building itself is prohibited within 100 meters from the National Assembly building, and to interpret that the prohibition of demonstration within 100 meters from the wall of the National Assembly is against the principle of prohibition of analogical interpretation.

(B) Even if an assembly or demonstration, which was not reported on May 10, 2012, is subject to dispersion order, a dispersion order may be issued only when it clearly causes a direct danger to the legal interests of others or public peace and order (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Do6294, Apr. 26, 2012). In order to resolve the problem of two automobiles, as well as to the effect that 10 persons, including the Defendant, and 40 persons, who are lawyers, temporarily contacted with the police of the line with the President, are clearly likely to directly pose a direct danger to the legal interests of others or public safety and order.