The Defendants are not guilty. The summary of each acquittal judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. The summary of the facts charged shall not hold any assembly or demonstration at a place within 100 meters from the boundary of the office building of the National Assembly;

Nevertheless, at around 17:00 on December 28, 2015, the Defendants planned to conduct a demonstration in the manner of putting the scamet along with other participants in the conference in front of the National Assembly in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Seoul. The Defendant A cited the scamet stating “non-regularly protected workers, i.e., the suspension of labor,” and Defendant B cited the c’s labor reform at a place less than 3 meters away from that point, stating “the c’s labor reform goes against the four-year period period period system, and the f’s life-long temporary workers our youth dispatch system,” and the other participants cited the c’s 3 meters away from that point to 20 meters away from that point as the Defendants agreed to implement young labor policies, and the camet containing the contents of the camet, such as “in the way of implementation of young labor policies,” “in the way of implementation of young labor policies,” and “in the way of implementation of young policies.”

Accordingly, the Defendants participated in the ongoing demonstration within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly's office building, which is the absolute prohibition place of assembly and demonstration.

2. The judgment of the Constitutional Court rendered a decision inconsistent with the Constitution that the part concerning "the National Assembly's apology" in subparagraph 1 of Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act applicable to the instant facts charged (hereinafter "the Assembly Act") and Article 11 subparagraph 1 of Article 23 of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, which relate to Article 11 of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, are inconsistent with the Constitution (see Constitutional Court Decision 2013HunBa32, 2013HunBa354, May 31, 2018; hereinafter referred to as "decision inconsistent with the Constitution of this case"). The decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of the Constitutional Court is a modified form that is not prescribed by the Constitution and the Constitutional Court, but is a legal provision.