Defendant

All appeals filed by A, C and Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A’s violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not have any kind of relief, such as “the withdrawal of the closure of H medical center”, and even if so, the Defendant was out of relief.

Even if it is nothing more than one kind of assembly or demonstration, it cannot be viewed as an assembly or demonstration under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”).

B. Part 1 on Defendant C’s violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (A) The Defendant held a non-reported assembly on April 10, 2013, and held a press conference to demand withdrawal of the closure of the H medical center in front of the Council’s present position on around 14:10 on April 10, 2013, and the Defendant was standing up until around 11:00 of the same month, and did not engage in any act that can be seen as an assembly, such as going outside of the council. Therefore, the Defendant did not hold a non-reported assembly.

B) On April 16, 2013, the Defendant reported to the police station in the Changwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, that “an assembly shall be held in the O building: (a) the public box adjacent to the O building from April 18, 2013 to 24:00; and (b) the 2/3 parking lot of the Gyeongnam-do Council Council 2/3; and (c) on April 18, 2013, the Defendant made an interview at around 09:45 on April 18, 2013; (d) however, the said interview cannot be deemed as an assembly; and (e) the Defendant did not commit any act deviating from the reported date, time, place, etc.

C) Despite the fact that the police station in the Changwon-gu, which was notified of the prohibition of assembly, was obviously likely to directly threaten public safety and order on April 23, 2013 and May 8, 2013, each “Notice of Prohibition of Holding Assembly” was held by each of the “Notice of Prohibition of Holding Assembly.” However, it is true that the Defendant held an assembly as notified on April 25, 2013 and May 23, 2013.

However, there was an act of assault, intimidation, etc. at an assembly organized before the report was filed.

Even if the actual organizer or nature of the assembly is different from that of the assembly, it cannot be concluded that the assembly directly threatens public peace and order, so the notification of the prohibition is unlawful and thus the defendant is prohibited.