The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Central District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Article 8(2) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) provides that “The head of the competent police authority may notify a person who hosts an assembly or demonstration, which has been notified of the ban pursuant to Article 8(2), of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, in cases where there are two or more reports in which the time and place of the assembly or demonstration overlap with one another, and where it is deemed that the objective is in conflict with or is in interference with one another, the prohibition of the assembly or demonstration, which has been received later, may be notified in accordance with paragraph (1).” Article 22(2) provides that

Therefore, unless there are special circumstances, the head of the competent police authority may give notice of prohibition to the assembly reported later in accordance with the order of report under Article 8(2) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. However, if the first reported meeting is objectively obvious that the first reported meeting falls under a false or most report on the assembly to prevent the holding of other assemblies, the head of the competent police authority shall not give notice of prohibition to the assembly itself only on the ground that the first reported meeting was reported first, unless there are other reasons for prohibition of assembly, and even if the person who first reported the meeting was held in violation of the notice of prohibition, such act shall not be deemed as an act of holding the assembly in violation of the notice of prohibition under the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

2. The court below, as stated in its reasoning, is legitimate a notification of prohibition to the assembly of this case that was reported after the assembly competes with each other and household affairs.