The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Freedom of assembly and demonstration has an essential function for the realization of democracy, but it is a freedom to express its opinion in a collective form, so it is highly likely to cause public peace and order or legal peace and conflict.

The Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall report a certain matter to the head of the competent police station in advance (Article 6 (1)), and the head of the competent police station who received the report shall grasp the nature, size, etc. of the outdoor assembly or demonstration in advance by the report and protect legitimate outdoor assembly or demonstration, and shall prepare prior measures to maintain public safety and order by preventing infringement of the interests of others or the community through outdoor assembly or demonstration.

This is the minimum measure to properly harmonize the freedom of assembly and demonstration and public peace and order, and thus, the act of holding an outdoor assembly conducted without such report shall be punished, and thereby, it does not infringe on fundamental rights under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do315, Apr. 27, 2004). For the same purport, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the act of holding an outdoor assembly not reported by the Defendant was erroneous in the application of unconstitutional laws.

Therefore, we cannot accept the allegation of the grounds of appeal disputing this point.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.