The judgment of the first instance shall be reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Each of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. The judgment of the court on the erroneous facts and misapprehension of legal principles concerning the gist of the grounds for appeal (the defendant participated in each assembly of this case without knowing whether each assembly of this case was not reported or not, and there was no awareness and intent to refuse to comply with the dispersion order due to the chief of the police station's failure to hear the dispersion order, and each assembly of this case did not interfere with traffic due to the impossibility or difficult passage on roads

A. Prior to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake, etc. regarding the violation of each of the dispersion orders, we examine ex officio whether each of the instant dispersion orders was legitimate.

An outdoor assembly or demonstration that is not allowed to be held beyond the scope of protection of the Constitution shall not be readily concluded solely on the ground that the report as prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was not reported.

Therefore, a dispersion order as prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act is permitted only when the outdoor assembly or demonstration leads to “a direct danger to other persons’ legal interests or public peace and order” and can only be punished only when the outdoor assembly or demonstration refuses to comply with the dispersion order meeting such requirements.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, each assembly of this case was conducted by means of creating relief, such as “a half-value registration fee,” etc. for one hour during the assembly participants occupying a road. In light of the aforementioned legal principles, each assembly of this case was conducted in a way of creating relief, such as “a half-value registration fee,” as to whether the assembly of this case clearly resulted in a direct danger to others’ legal interests or public peace and order, and accordingly, whether each of the instant orders was lawful.