beta
Text
Defendant
All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant 1) In misunderstanding of legal principles, the instant assembly constitutes “ordinary political party activities” guaranteed by five representatives and party members under Article 37(2) of the Political Parties Act. Considering that the assembly does not fall under ordinary political party activities and punishing the participants by applying general traffic obstruction is excessively narrow without any ground, and thus, it is contrary to Article 8(3) of the Constitution that declares the protection of political parties and Article 37(2) of the Political Parties Act that provides the guarantee of ordinary activities of political parties. (2) The instant assembly of mistake of facts was originally planned to be opened in the luminous square, and the police was installed in the front of the luminous square in order to prevent the passage into the lusium. In order to prevent the passage of the lusium, the participants were on the lane because they were unable to obtain a plaza before the lusium and enter the square, and it is nothing more than an event for concluding a campaign speech meeting without any justifiable reason.
The defendant does not agree with other participants in the assembly or interfere with road traffic by intention.
B. Prosecutor 1) In the event of the commission of the remaining crimes, which were recruited by another competitor, even though the person who conspireds mistake or misunderstanding the legal principles as to the acquitted portion of the lower judgment did not participate in the execution, the co-principal is responsible for the crime. The Defendant, as the lead of the assembly, was a co-principal with the other participants in the assembly, led to illegal progress and traffic obstruction, and even if he left the scene, it cannot be viewed as a deviation from the public contest relationship, and thus, a co-principal is established even after leaving the site. 2) Comprehensively taking account of the fact that the Defendant led the assembly of the case of unfair sentencing, the sentence of the lower court (a fine of KRW 500,00) is too unreasonable.
2. Determination: