Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the Secretary General, is the Chairman of the Execution Committee and the E (hereinafter referred to as “E”).

On June 24, 2009, the Defendant filed a report on an outdoor assembly with the content that “G” holding more than 1,000 members of E in the square of Seoul Metropolitan Government Office from 16:0 to 18:00.00.

On June 25, 2009, the Southern Police Station sent a notice of prohibition on the above report to the defendant on the ground that if an assembly reported first at the same time and at the same time was held simultaneously, the purpose of the assembly would be to reflect and interfere with each other.

Nevertheless, at around 16:10 to 18:05, the Defendant organized an assembly, “In the presence of 700 members, etc., including E, from Seoul Square, the Defendant: (a) held a meeting, i.e., the community of an assembly that took place by free speech, etc.,” “H”.

Accordingly, the defendant organized a meeting which was prohibited by the prohibition notice.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to I and J;

1. Notice of prohibition against outdoor assembly, report of outdoor assembly, request for notification to the recipient of the report of outdoor assembly, notification of objection regarding notification of prohibition against outdoor assembly report, notification of objection to objection, notification of objection to registration and delivery of

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing information situations;

1. Article 22 (2), Article 8 (2), and Article 8 (1) of the Act on the elective Assembly and Demonstration against Criminal Crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the defense counsel given notice of prohibition to the assembly report of this case on the ground of the possibility of conflict with the first reported assembly in order to prevent the presentation of opinions by those who do not agree with the government policy. The notification of prohibition notice was not given an opportunity to contest the legality of the prohibition notice because it was not received.