Article 20 (1) 5 and 20 (1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act among the whole guilty portion and the innocent portion of the judgment of the court below.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendants B and C on August 20, 209 regarding the holding of an outdoor assembly not reported as of August 20, 2009, the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”) provides that the chief of the competent police station, upon receipt of the report, shall report certain matters to the chief of the competent police station in advance to hold the outdoor assembly, thereby protecting legitimate outdoor assembly by ascertaining the nature, size, etc. of the outdoor assembly in advance. On the other hand, the chief of the competent police station, upon receipt of the report, shall prepare prior measures to maintain public safety and order by

Therefore, the competent police station knew that an outdoor assembly or demonstration will be held.

or the assembly or demonstration shall be peacefully held.

The above obligation to report cannot be exempted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do1649 Decided July 9, 2009. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s finding the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged against Defendant B and Defendant C by citing the first instance judgment.

Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no illegality in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the application of Articles 22(2) and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

2. As to the grounds of appeal by the Prosecutor on the holding of an outdoor assembly on September 4, 2009

A. In a case where an outdoor assembly reported but held an assembly beyond the degree recognized as identical to the reported assembly, it does not violate Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act in a case where it held the assembly without reporting, but in a situation where its identity is maintained, it violates Article 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act in a case where “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported purpose, date, time, place, method, etc.”

In this case, the organizer who reported an outdoor assembly shall hold the following events under his/her command.