beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution regarding the part concerning the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) in Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8424, May 11, 2007) and the part concerning “the National Assembly Assembly’s opinion” in Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8424, May 11, 2007) with respect to “the Assembly’s opinion” in Article 23 and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act shall not be in conformity with the Constitution.” “The above provision of the law shall continue to apply until it was amended by the time limit of December 31, 2019 (Article 2013Hun-Ba322, 2016Hun-Ba354, 2017Hun-Ba360, 398, 471, etc.).
The Constitutional Court's ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution is a modified form that does not stipulate the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act, but is a decision of unconstitutionality on the legal provisions.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7111 Decided January 15, 2009, Constitutional Court Decision 2003HunGa1, 2004HunGa4 Decided May 27, 2004, etc.). Article 23 Subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act shall be violated. Article 23 Subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that Article 24 Subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act shall be combined with Article 20(2) and Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act to constitute elements.
( Constitutional Court Order 2015Hun-Ga28, 2016Hun-Ga5 Decided June 28, 2018). Ultimately, Article 11 Subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is combined with Article 23 Subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act or Article 24 Subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and thus, the instant decision of inconsistency with the Constitution becomes unconstitutional as to the penal provisions.
In addition, Article 47 (3) of the Constitutional Court Act is declared unconstitutional.