The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Although the freedom of assembly and demonstration has an essential function for the realization of democracy, it is highly likely to cause public peace and order or legal peace and conflict because it is a freedom to express its opinion in a collective form.

The Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall report a certain matter in advance to the head of the competent police station (Article 6(1)), and the head of the competent police station who has received the report shall grasp the nature, size, etc. of the outdoor assembly or demonstration in advance and protect legitimate outdoor assembly or demonstration, but shall prepare prior measures to maintain public safety and order by preventing infringement of the interests of others or the community through outdoor assembly or demonstration.

This is the minimum measure to properly harmonize the freedom of assembly demonstration and public peace and order, and thus, the act of holding an outdoor assembly conducted without such report shall be punished, and thereby, it does not infringe on fundamental rights under the Constitution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Do315, Apr. 27, 2004). The grounds of appeal are as follows: ① Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is unconstitutional, which infringes on the freedom of assembly assembly demonstration; ② even if the above Act is not unconstitutional, the defendant only gives an interview to ordinary reporters, and even if it does not require a prior report, the court below found the defendant guilty by infringing on the freedom of speech under the Constitution, etc., and thus, the judgment below is unlawful.

However, in light of the above legal principles, the argument that Article 6 (1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

In addition, in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the lower judgment, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case.