Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

On May 19, 2012, the Defendant participated in the “D Victim’s National Memorial Games,” which was held and held in the Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Southern-gu Seoul Southern-gu Steering Committee.

The participants of the assembly continued to occupy the front lane in the direction of proceeding to the Seoul Square located in Jung-gu Seoul, Seoul, and continued to occupy the front lane in the Seoul Square.

From 18:15 to 18:58 on the same day, the Defendant occupied the above road by occupying approximately 3,50 participants in other assemblies, and occupying a five-way lane in front of the subway viewing station located in Jung-gu Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, along with the two-way direction-setting roads around the subway viewing station located in Jung-gu, Seoul, and the Seoul Square, thereby hindering vehicle traffic.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with other participants in the assembly and interfered with the traffic on land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Report of information status;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographic materials of an assembly inventor;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant asserts that his participation in the instant assembly was against D’s unfair dismissal, and that the participants including the Defendant did not involve violent means, and that the right of freedom of assembly and the right of life of dismissed workers is more important legal interests than interference with traffic caused by the instant assembly, and that the only means to solve the said problem was outside the instant assembly, and thus, the Defendant’s act does not violate the social rules, and thus, it does not constitute a justifiable act.

However, under our legal system where the freedom of assembly is guaranteed under the Constitution, the defendant participates in the assembly of this case and has a right to evade his political opinion.