The judgment below

The part against the Defendants is reversed.

Defendant

A and C shall be punished by imprisonment for four months, and Defendant B.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Defendant A, May 29, 2013, holding an assembly without reporting on May 29, 2013, is not subject to prior reporting as prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”).

B) Although the above assembly, which was notified of the ban on June 11, 2013, does not correspond to the prohibition requirement under Article 8(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the head of the competent police authority notified the prohibition of assembly, and thus, the criminal liability for the violation should be interpreted strictly.

In addition, even though Defendant A merely participated in or decided at all in the report of assembly, decision on the method of assembly, operation of assembly, etc., it is unfair that Defendant A is punished as an organizer of an assembly on the sole basis of the fact that the organizer of the assembly report is a separate labor union and the name of the representative is written.

2) On May 24, 2014, Defendant C’s interference with the performance of special official duties, and the duties performed by N public officials AB, and Z at O Medical Center was closed by the O Medical Center, an independent medical corporation independent of N.

Defendant C’s act does not carry out N’s “public duties”, and Defendant C’s act cannot be deemed as “the threat of group or multiple force,” which is a constituent element of a crime of obstructing the performance of public duties. Therefore, the crime of obstructing the performance of public duties cannot be established.

3) Defendant A and C’s refusal to leave the Republic of Korea is due to the fact that Defendant A and C supported legitimate trade union activities and dispute action. At the time of occupying the O Medical Center, the above Defendants did not have legitimate workplace closure measures, and the act of dispute itself is not illegal, and thus, the crime of refusing to leave cannot be established.

B. Defendant A, and C alleged that the lower court’s sentence (4 months of imprisonment and 2 years of suspended execution) sentenced to the above Defendants was too unreasonable, and the prosecutor tried to dismiss the Defendants.