The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The original facts charged and the judgment of the court below on them

A. On February 4, 2012, the original Defendant was elected as the president of the 8 E organization (hereinafter “E organization”) and was active.

A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, etc. to the chief of the competent police station from 720 hours to 48 hours before commencing the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

On June 3, 2012, from around 15:20 to 16:45, the Defendant organized an outdoor assembly (hereinafter referred to as “instant assembly”) by holding an outdoor assembly (hereinafter referred to as “instant assembly”) by holding, without reporting an outdoor assembly at the street in front of the new town located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, by holding more than 230 college students belonging to the E organization without reporting an outdoor assembly at the street.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant, as the representative of the E organization, reported an outdoor assembly on May 30, 2012 to the head of the Seoul Northern Police Station. However, the instant assembly may be deemed beyond the reported scope, and the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone cannot be readily concluded as constituting an outdoor assembly or demonstration held without reporting, and that the Defendant was acquitted on the grounds that there is no other evidence to acknowledge the foregoing.

2. The grounds for appeal by the prosecutor (defluence of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) constituted the instant assembly without reporting an outdoor assembly in front of the newly held party from around 15:20 on June 3, 2012 to 16:45, and even if so, the Defendant cannot be punished as an unreported assembly.

Even if there is an act clearly deviating from the previous scope of the report on outdoor assembly, it should be punished as a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”).

3. Prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal by the prosecutor ex officio, the prosecutor tried ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds of appeal, and as to the facts charged in this case, the prosecutor tried to have the applicable provisions in the Act.