All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine was set to the minimum extent to protect the assembly and demonstration and to maintain public order.

As can not be seen, it does not fall under any of the subparagraphs of Article 13(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and it is a line to maintain order illegally established.

In addition, the defendant tried to hold an assembly at the end of delivery by way of driving two meters away from the place of assembly report according to consultation with the police information officer, and after gathering a request for interview, the defendant tried to hold an assembly at the end of delivery. The defendant only pushed off one yellow plastic board by side in order to put the passage for this purpose and resist to set an excessive line of maintenance of order.

In the end, there is a justifiable reason in the defendant's act, and the defendant has invadedd or moved the order maintenance line for a considerable time.

It is not possible to see that there is no fact that the defendant has impaired the utility of the good faith, such as passing beyond the line of order maintenance with other participants.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding of facts or by misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The judgment of the court below is based on the following circumstances revealed in the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the part on delivery of the E building as the venue of the assembly report of this case reported by the defendant, and according to the field photographs attached thereto, the part on delivery of the roadway in front of the E building is indicated as the passage of pedestrians and the remaining part is used as the place of assembly, and the assembly of this case was planned as only the "part of the E building delivery" from the beginning to the place of assembly, and ② the police at the time passes over the E building as scheduled in the report of this case.