(영문) 대법원 2017.12.22.선고 2015도10215 판결

The non-guilty part of the judgment below is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Seoul Northern District Court.

section 3.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court, based on its stated reasoning, based on the same background as the W Police Station R from around 00:40 on June 12, 2011.

Considering that a broadcast cannot be deemed a lawful dispersion order for eight times from the date 02:08;

Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Assembly and Demonstration Act") due to non-compliance with the dispersion Order

The Court rendered a not guilty verdict on the violation of the Act.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the instant demonstration is reported.

On June 11, 2011, the facts that the demonstration was not held and continued beyond 24:00 on June 11, 201; 2 R means the police broadcast vehicles.

From around 00:36 to 02:08 on June 12, 201, “W Police Station” is known to him/her at a total of 11 times in total.

(c) Many minutes of the participants in an assembly, and many minutes are illegal assembly or demonstration which is not reported at night;

(c) voluntary dispersion and return home to the Republic of Korea, and during the duration of the week, “..........” sent a broadcast once;

The same content was repeated by 2-3 times in broadcasting, and 3 R’s broadcast when conducting such broadcasting

Electronic display boards installed outside of quantity with the words "the first dispersion order" or "the nine dispersion order"

The facts clearly indicated, 400 or more participants of the demonstration in this case shall hold a demonstration in front of B/S.

On June 12, 2011, from around 00:45 to right west B, and 01:25 on the same day.

From 01:30, some participants began to go beyond the wall B, and the inside of the door B from 01:30

the state of demonstration, such as fighting with security guards or decentralization of fire extinguishers, etc.;

offices, etc. may be known.

The progress of the demonstration of this case, the contents of the police broadcast and the display of the electronic sign board, and the distance of the broadcast

In light of the fruit and frequency, the situation of demonstration at the time of broadcasting, etc., the demonstration of this case was not reported.

It constitutes a night demonstration, and the request of the head of the competent police authority for termination declaration was omitted;

participants of the demonstration at issue, even though the demand for voluntary dispersion was made to the participants of the demonstration at issue

other person’s legal interests, such as going to B and going beyond B’s fence, without complying with it; or

Dissolution at least three times in circumstances in which a direct danger to public peace and order has been clearly caused;

The order was issued, and the participants of the demonstration were ordered to dissolve by the display of broadcasting and electronic display boards.

Since it seems that the above police broadcast was sufficiently known, Article 20 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

There is room to regard it as a lawful dispersion order under paragraph (1).

In light of the foregoing, the lower court’s determination on the content and frequency of police broadcasts, the content and electronic sign board plates

After hearing the relationship of the city, the location of broadcasting vehicles, the situation of demonstration at the time of broadcasting, etc., the police room;

notice of a specific cause of dissolution that the notice of the procedural requirement is a legitimate order of dissolution

It should have been determined whether or not to do so.

Nevertheless, the court below did not reach it, and on the grounds stated in its reasoning, the police broadcast is legitimate.

The court below determined that a dispersion order cannot be seen as a dispersion order. The court below determined that Article 20(1) of the Act is

misunderstanding of the legal principles regarding dispersion order, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Therefore, the non-guilty part of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this part of the case is reviewed and decided again.

The case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

The decision shall be rendered as above.