All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the final means to consider when there is no possibility of allowing an assembly by attaching conditions to the prohibition of assembly. However, the Seoul Local Police Agency notified the instant assembly prohibition on November 13, 2015 on the report of “AT and Q” assembly (hereinafter “instant assembly”) by November 14, 2015 (hereinafter “instant prohibition notification”) without any consultation with B on other alternative means, such as conditional permission for assembly (hereinafter “transport inconvenience”). In light of the circumstances that the police police installed a wall at the time of the instant assembly, the instant prohibition notification is illegal measures taken out not for traffic communication but for the purpose of avoiding freedom of assembly.

However, based on the notice of prohibition of this case, the police went into an illegal assembly as follows.

B) At the time of the instant assembly, the police installed a garage using police buses, etc. as a line for the maintenance of order. ① The tea wall is the Act on Assembly and Demonstration (hereinafter “Act”).

(2) Article 13(2) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Assembly and Demonstration Act do not fall under the “security mark of belts, fences, lines, etc.” enumerated in Article 2 subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. Thus, setting up a line with a line of order is unlawful in itself, and even if installed a line of order constitutes a line of order under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the police did not perform the duty of prior notification of setting up a line of order under Article 13(2) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 13(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. The police installed a line of order by the police at the time of the assembly of this case against the minimum principle of necessity under Article 13(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and installed a double wall of the crime of invasion until delivery.