208No4015 Special Obstruction of Official Duties, Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

1. A1 (72 Years, Residuals);

2. A2 (73 Yearss, Residuals)

3. A3 (Attending 69 Years, South Korea)

4. A4 (Life in 79, South Korea)

5. A5 (Examine 78, South Korea)

6. A6 (Year 73, South Korea)

7. A7 (Year 77, South Korea)

8. A8 (Lifelong 81, South Korea)

9. A9 (Lifelong in 79, South Korea)

10. A10 (79years, South Korea)

Defendant A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10, and Prosecutor (Defendants)

A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, A10

Efficiencies

Busan District Court Decision 2008Dadan3160 decided Oct. 2, 2008 (Separation) and Busan District Court Decision 2008

District Court Decision 2008Dadan3160-1 (Separation) Decided October 16, 2008

August 13, 2009

All appeals filed by the defendant A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, A9, and the prosecutor's defendant A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A7, A8, A9, and A10 are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding (Defendant A2, A3, A5, A9, and A9) Defendant A2, A3, A5, and A9 merely resisted the police with excessive suppression of the assembly of this case duly reported, and there was no fact of using specific violence in the process of physical fighting with the police, and Defendant A8 was injured by the brue with the police at the time of the assembly of this case, and was separated from the demonstration team, and there was no fact of participating in the crime of this case. In light of the fact-finding, the lower court convicted all of the facts charged of this case and thereby committed an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Unreasonable sentencing

(1) Defendant A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A8, A9, or A10

① During the instant assembly process, the Defendants are fully responsible for the police with excessive suppression of a demonstration that demanded a free assembly even though the assembly of this case was lawfully reported. ② The crime of this case was not planned in advance, but occurred in the process of the assembly. ③ Defendants A2, A3, A5, and A9 thought that physical collisions occurred between the demonstration team and the police during the assembly of this case. ④ Defendants A4 did not have any economic condition, ④ Defendant A4 did not have any intention to respond to the warning of the police at the time, ④ Defendant A4 did not have any intention to return to Defendant A: Defendant A 1’s police officer: Defendant 2 was not subject to a fine: Defendant 1’s own monthly revenue; Defendant 6 was not subject to a fine; Defendant A’s physical harm during the process of the assembly of this case; Defendant A was not subject to a fine for negligence of 0, and Defendant A 1 was not subject to a fine for negligence of 0: Defendant 1’s own physical harm.

(2) Prosecutor

Defendant A1, A2, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A10 had a record of criminal punishment several times by committing the crime similar to the crime in this case. Defendant A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A8, and A10 had a record of committing the crime in this case. Defendant A1 was the organizer of the assembly in this case, who led the crime in this case, not only is the one who was sentenced to a suspended sentence, but also was sentenced to a suspended sentence even if it was tried once with the case for which the suspended sentence became final, considering that there was no guarantee that Defendant A1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence, and that Defendant A1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence against Defendant A1, the main offender in this case, and that Defendant A1 was sentenced to a suspended sentence, and that there was no reason to impose an excessive fine for the crime in this case.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on Defendant A7’s appeal

The defendant did not submit the statement of grounds for appeal within the period for submitting the legitimate grounds for appeal, and the petition of appeal submitted by the defendant does not state the grounds for appeal, and no grounds for ex officio investigation can be found even after examining the records.

B. Defendant A2, A3, A5, A9, and A8's assertion of misunderstanding of facts were lawfully adopted and investigated by evidence, namely, ① Defendant A2 and A9 stated that they were assaulted to the extent that they were fighting with the police officers, or that they were pushed down with their body, and Defendant A5 did not appear to have reached the scene of fighting between the police officers and the police officers; ② Defendant A2, A5, and A9 were aware of the fact that the above Defendants did not appear to have reached the scene of fighting between the police officers and the police officers in light of the fact that they did not appear to have reached the scene of fighting; ② Defendant A2, A5, and 5 were aware of the fact that the above Defendants did not appear to have been aware of the fact at the scene of the assembly of this case at the time of the assembly at bar of this case at the time of the assembly at bar of this case at the bar of 5, and that there was no violation of law in the process of the assembly at the bar of the police officers at the bar of this case at the bar of A5.

In the process of the assembly of this case, since part of the Defendant A1 and others such as the U.S. Armed Forces order was tried to enter the franchise card to the 55 creative network, and body fighting had been avoided between the above units, and during that process, as stated in the facts charged, it seems that the above Defendants’ act of protruding behavior was not included in the initial report of the assembly. Furthermore, the remaining Defendants except the Defendant A9 appear to have been subject to criminal punishment on the grounds that they led or participated in the assembly of this case even before and after the crime of this case, and that there was no need to take into account the fact that the Defendants were unable to engage in the assembly of this case’s act of de facto deterioration or deterioration of it by abusing their freedom of assembly as in this case, and that there was no need to take into account the circumstances that the above Defendants’ act of de facto deterioration and deterioration of their body could not be seen as a mere reason to hold the assembly of this case’s force before and after the assembly of this case’s assembly of this case’s case was conducted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, pursuant to Article 360-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, Defendant A7’s appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 360-4(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (as long as the prosecutor rendered a judgment on the appeal against the above defendant, the appeal is dismissed by the judgment as shown in the Disposition above), Defendant A2, A3, A4, A5, A6, A8, A9, A10 of each appeal and the prosecutor’s appeal against Defendant A1, A2, A4, A5, A6, A7, A7, A8, A9, A10 of each appeal and each appeal against Defendant A1, A2, A4, A7, A8, A

Presiding Judge, Judge Park Jung-chul

Judges Jong-ho

Judges Kim Gin-ju