beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals filed against the Defendants by A, C, D, and Prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. For the following reasons, Defendant A, C, and D1’s act was erroneous or erroneous. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found Defendant A, C, and D guilty of the facts charged in the instant case as to Defendant A, C, and D.
(A) On November 14, 2015, Defendant A, C, and D did not have an intention to interfere with ordinary traffic since they were legally reported to the public (limited to outdoor assembly and demonstration; hereinafter “instant assembly”) under the self-governing authority’s reponbbol Dok Doz. The notification of the police’s prohibition against it violates the principle of excessive prohibition. Even if the domestic police’s notification of prohibition was lawful disposition, Defendant A, C, and D did not have an awareness that they were to participate in the instant assembly as a mere participant of the instant assembly, and therefore did not have an awareness of illegality.
(B) The police officer illegally installed the instant assembly, thereby causing traffic obstruction by itself, and cannot be deemed to have caused traffic obstruction due to the acts of Defendant A, C, and D.
(C) At the time of the instant assembly, the police illegally used sexual police equipment for the purpose of performing official duties, such as murdering.
2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A, C, and D (a fine of 1.5 million won, Defendant C, and Defendant D: each fine of 2 million won) is too unreasonable.
B. The Prosecutor (in respect of the Defendants: Defendant A, C, and D) sentenced by the lower court to the Defendants (as above, Defendant B: the same as the above, Defendant B: the suspended sentence) is too uneasible and unfair.
2. Determination
A. As to the Defendant A, C, and D’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s charges against the Defendant A, C, and D on the following grounds (which are acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted by the lower court).