The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In light of the purport of the Assembly and Demonstration Act’s establishment of the reporting system, whether an outdoor assembly or demonstration held in reality constitutes “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported purpose, date, time, place, method, etc.” under Article 16(4)3 of the same Act shall be determined by whether the assembly or demonstration clearly deviates from the scope anticipated by the report, and thus, it is extremely difficult to achieve the purpose of the reporting system.

In addition, the determination shall be based on the fact that the freedom of assembly and demonstration is the fundamental rights of the people guaranteed by the Constitution, and that the organizer of the assembly and demonstration can not report in advance all the detailed matters of the method of the assembly and demonstration without delay, and that there may be inevitable changes in the method in the process of the assembly and demonstration, etc. In full view of the fact that the details of the report and the actual situation are individually compared, and the overall evaluation and determination thereof should be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Do3974, Oct. 23, 2008; 2009Do12609, Mar. 11, 2010). For the reasons stated in its reasoning, the lower court, on the grounds that the Defendant’s act of holding the assembly at the place of the assembly in this case by the assembly in this case constitutes “an act clearly beyond the scope of the reported place” under Article 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly Act”), and thus, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act of illegality.

Based on the judgment of the court below, the charged facts of this case were convicted.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported place” and “an act of political party” under Article 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.