beta
Text
All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On May 14, 2009, the Defendants’ part in the Defendants’ part in the meeting of this case was not an assembly, but a family assembly was reported to the chief of the police station having jurisdiction over the place where the meeting of this case was held. The chief of the police station notified the Defendants of the prohibition of assembly on the ground that collective assault, threat, damage, fire prevention, etc. was obvious that the assembly of this case would pose a direct threat to public safety and order. However, the above prohibition notification is illegal. Accordingly, the order of dispersion of this case is unlawful.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the judgment.
B. The Prosecutor’s Grounds for Appeal (the Defendant A: a fine of KRW 700,00,000, Defendant B, and C: Each suspended sentence) declared by the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, although the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not have any definition as to the concept of assembly itself, the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) defines any demonstration as an act that affects the opinions of many and unspecified persons, including roads, squares, parks, etc. where many and unspecified persons may freely pass through, or showing power or power or power, and regulates outdoor assemblies under Article 3 thereof (Article 2 Subparag. 2), while the assembly subject to security and regulation under the above Act refers to an assembly that “a specific or unspecified number of persons form a common opinion and temporarily gather at a certain place for the purpose of expressing it externally” refers to an assembly that is subject to security and regulation under the above Act.
Supreme Court Decision 200