The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles on the grounds of appeal, the instant assembly was held by G. The Defendant merely participated in the assembly, and there was no conspiracy with G, etc. concerning the hosting of the assembly.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty.

The sentencing of the court below's improper sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

Judgment

The Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Law") on the misunderstanding of Facts or the misunderstanding of legal principles is abbreviationd.

Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Act refers to a person or organization holding an assembly or demonstration under his/her own responsibility under Article 2 subparag. 3. The organizer of a demonstration subject to a prior report pursuant to Article 6 subparag. 1 of the Act refers to a person holding or leading the demonstration, or a person planning and organizing the demonstration and moving the demonstration to its implementation (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do1930, Feb. 8, 1983). A person who conspired to implement an outdoor assembly or demonstration through a functional control based on his/her own intent and common intent with respect to the hosting of the outdoor assembly or demonstration, even if the person did not directly participate in the specific conduct, he/she cannot be exempted from the criminal liability as a joint principal offender with respect to the activities of hosting an outdoor assembly or demonstration, which was installed in the name of another co-offender (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Do1244, Aug. 18, 192; 2008Do628, Jun. 16, 2008).