The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of the legal principles), interference with the assembly and failure to comply with the dispersion order, and the opposition to the Defendants’ participation constitutes an unreported assembly.

G Holding an assembly and cultural assembly in order to prevent assemblies from holding in front of the due diligence of the head office;

Even if a report on assembly was made and the actual assembly was conducted in the same manner as the report, as long as it is not an assembly such as violence prohibited by the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly Act”), it should be protected by the Assembly and Demonstration Act regardless of the actual purpose, motive, and motive of the assembly.

Even if G, as the Defendants’ assertion, had the intent to defend the first subrogated assembly, if the report of assembly was made and the assembly was conducted in a peaceful manner identical with the content of the report, the intent of the participants in the assembly should not be interfered with regardless of the intent of the participants in the assembly.

Since the Defendants’ non-reported assemblies interfered with the general assembly, delivery and crosswalks that the general public pass for about 3 hours and 40 minutes, causing danger to the traffic of unspecified citizens or vehicles, the dispersion order issued on the ground that the police failed to report was lawful.

Nevertheless, the court below ruled the Defendants not guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

At the time of the violation of the participants' code of practice, the instant vision was not reported, and it was established without permission on the part of the International Captain. At the time of the violation of the participants' code of conduct, the I Crime Captain instigated participants, leading to the G door, and otherO was going up to the above vision by the police, and the police was lawful performance of official duties because the participants were dissatisfing from the vision to the above vision for the safety of theO.

Defendant

A et al. performed violence against the police's legitimate performance of official duties.