The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the case of a violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to the holding of a unreported assembly on which the lower court acquitted the Defendant, the lower court held an assembly without any obvious contingent organizer, such as moving 1,500 persons including the Defendant to another place without voluntary dispersion, while moving 1,500 persons including the Defendant to the other place without voluntary dispersion, and thus, the Defendant is liable as a co-principal at least for holding a unreported assembly.

Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentencing (the suspension of sentence of a fine of KRW 500,00) is too minor.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of legal principles, 1) Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”) is applicable.

Article 2 Subparag. 3 of the same Act is a person or organization holding an assembly or demonstration under his/her own responsibility and subject to prior reporting pursuant to Article 6(1) of the same Act. The organizer of a demonstration that requires prior reporting pursuant to Article 6(1) of the same Act refers to a person holding or leading the demonstration, or a person who moves to the implementation by planning and organizing the demonstration. A person who has conspired to hold an unreported outdoor assembly or demonstration through functional control based on his/her common intent and common intent is liable as a co-principal for an unreported outdoor assembly or demonstration held by another accomplice even if he/she did not directly participate in the specific act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2821, Sept. 29, 2011).