The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) prohibits an outdoor assembly absolutely at a place within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly’s office building. The above provision is a constitutional provision that recognizes the legitimacy of the legislative purpose, the appropriateness of the method, the minimum of infringement and the balance of the legal interests and interests.

In violation of the above provision, the defendant participated in assemblies, such as holding demonstration goods and holding reliefs, on the pretext of holding a press conference in front of the National Assembly, and the chief of the competent police station did not comply with the lawful dispersion order. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged 1) No one shall hold any outdoor assembly or stage any demonstration at a place within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly’s office building. Nevertheless, from around 10:00 on February 5, 2015 to from 12:50 on the same day, the Defendant, as the participants of the National Assembly, was placed in front of the National Assembly at a distance of not more than 10 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly’s office building, to 12:50 on the street before the National Assembly’s office building, and as the participants of other assemblies, with the contents such as “elimet, body, banner, banner, etc. in which the Jinus president ceases to stop the quality of A,” and the Defendant, as the head of the police station’s order against the assembly’s failure to participate in the assembly at the place where the assembly was prohibited from being held within 10 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly’s office.