All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1 and 2’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to Defendant A and B’s violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on April 24, 2015 does not constitute a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act since indoor assemblies unrelated to the reported assembly are not subject to any other report under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”). Thus, even if Defendants’ act deviates from the reported scope under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Defendant B did not have the organizer of the assembly, and thus, the lower court convicted this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles.

2) The lower court’s sentencing on the Defendants’ assertion of unfair sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentencing against the Defendants by the prosecutor is too uncomfortable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the misapprehension of the legal principles of Defendant A and B, namely, ① Defendant B, the head of the H branch of the building labor union in Gwangju, who is the head of the building labor union in Gwangju, upon delegation from Defendant A, the head of the G branch of the said branch, the head of the Gu in Gwangju, and on March 28, 2015, as the reporter himself/herself, submitted the report, “from April 19, 2015 to April 27, 2015, up to 0:0 on April 19, 2015, up to 50 meters at the entrance of the JW, 50 meters at the front of the viewing sculptures, 50 meters of the viewing sculptures and the delivery of viewing sculptures,” and ② Defendant B, an employee of the J branch of the building in the name of the head of the Gu and the head of the Gu office in Gwangju, from around 30 to 40:50 on April 24, 2015.

A statement, 3.