1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. From April 30, 2007, the Plaintiff’s assembly and demonstration (i) from April 30, 2007 to January 4, 2008, at the front report located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government from April 30, 2007 to D business cargo vehicles owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter the instant vehicle) using broadcasting vehicles.

In this regard, the Plaintiff reported an outdoor assembly to the head of Seoul Young Military Police Station in advance, the purpose of the assembly is “C and the illegality of the committee,” the place is “E India,” and the participation organization and organizer as “F Association and the Plaintiff.” The chief of the police station issued a receipt indicating the time of the assembly as “from sunrise to sunset” during the above period.

Dor. The Plaintiff parked the instant vehicle in the front report during the meeting during the above period.

The instant vehicle was controlled on October 24, 2007, ① on October 24, 2007, ② November 11, 2002, ③ November 26, 2007, ③ November 27, 2007, respectively; and ① on November 27, 2007, the vehicle was towed.

The plaintiff filed an objection against the disposition of imposition of a fine for negligence on the above (1) and received a decision to impose a fine for negligence, and (2) and (3) received a disposition of cancellation of a fine for negligence by filing an objection with the defendant on the ground that it is a

Article 22(1) of the Consolidated Treaty provides that the Plaintiff shall report 15 times from May 21, 2007 to January 11, 2008 on 25 occasions on the ground that the Plaintiff may interfere with the assembly and demonstration during the above period.

Applicant, on the other hand, there were the following days during the assembly period.

㈎ 원고는 2007. 6. 14. 15:15경 C 지하주차장 출구 앞에서 C 경비원이 원고의 만류에도 불구하고 원고의 시위장면을 촬영하는 것에 화가 나 이 사건 차량을 운전하여 C 안으로 들어가려고 했다.

Therefore, even though C Security Guards installed a iron rack for vehicle control at the entrance of the entrance to the exit of the underground parking lot, the Plaintiff is driving the instant vehicle, thereby pushing the said rack and keeping it out to C.