beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant’s notice of prohibition of this case is unlawful as it abused discretion in the following point. Thus, the Defendant’s act holding a prohibited assembly does not constitute a crime.
① The assembly first reported by R for the purpose of “civil order awareness” is deemed subsequent to the assembly of this case and its purpose, and it is not recognized that the assembly of this case is in conflict with or interfering with each other. There was no possibility of conflict between the place where the assembly is held and the method of proceeding.
② The first reported assembly was not likely to be held, and there was no need to protect the first reported assembly in that it was not held actually, but it constitutes a serious infringement on the freedom of assembly.
③ Article 40(2) and (3) of the Administrative Procedures Act provides that where a report not conforming to the form requirements is filed, an administrative agency shall require the reporter to supplement the report by fixing a reasonable period. Thus, the failure of the head of Seoul Southern Northern Police Station to give the defendant an opportunity to receive the withdrawal of the above meeting first reported to the defendant violates the purpose of legislation of the Administrative Procedures Act, thereby violating the minimum infringement principle
④ The Defendant was unable to be notified of the result of the ruling on the objection against the instant prohibition notification, and was not guaranteed an opportunity to contest whether the ruling was lawful.
B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court (2 million won of fine) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination:
A. Articles 6, 8, and 9 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) of the Defendant’s grounds for appeal require a person who seeks to hold an outdoor assembly to submit a report to the head of the competent police authority, and the head of the competent police authority shall regard one another in cases where two or more reports overlap in time and place of the assembly.