All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the unreported assembly, the court below found the Defendants guilty on the following grounds: the Defendants did not hold an assembly but did not have a duty to report under the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, and it did not constitute an assembly for which the duty to report the guides is recognized, even if it constitutes an assembly for which the duty to report is recognized, it constitutes an assembly within the reasonable scope necessary to achieve the objective of the assembly, and thus constitutes an assembly which is acceptable under the social norms, and thus, it does not go against the social norms,

B. As to the failure to comply with the dispersion order, the court below erred in finding that the Defendants did not hold an assembly, which is a legitimate logical conclusion, and thus cannot constitute a crime of non-compliance with the dispersion order. The court below erred in finding that the instant dispersion order was not lawful, so long as it does not directly pose any danger to the public safety and order.

2. Determination

A. (i) The Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) defines the assembly itself as an act of a group of people to proceed with a place where the general public may freely pass, such as a road, plaza, park, etc., with the common purpose, or to exert influence on, or control over, the opinion of an unspecified number of people (Article 2 subparagraph 2), while guaranteeing and regulating an outdoor assembly under Article 3 or below, in light of the following: (a) the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not stipulate any definition as to the concept of the assembly itself (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) and the concept of the assembly itself; and (b) in light of the fact that the assembly is under guarantee and regulation under the above Act or that many and unspecified persons form a common opinion.