2010No618 A. Violation of the State Public Officials Act

B. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

1.(a)(b)(************) and teachers.

Daejeon Dong-gu, Daejeon

Reference domicile, Daejeon Dong-dong

2. A.I.D.'(*********************)), teachers, teachers.

Residential Seo-gu, Dongdong Apartment-ho

Daejeon District Court Decision 201

3. A.M.A.M.A. M. M. S.A. M. S. (************)), teachers.

Residential Seo-gu, Dongdong Apartment-ho

Daejeon District Court Decision 201

Defendant 'A' and the Prosecutor

decoration;

Attorney Song-sung (for the defendant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2009Gohap2786, 2009 High Court Decision 2259 decided February 25, 2010

209 Highest 4126 (Joint Judgment) Judgment

May 14, 2010

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant 2 is punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,00, by a fine of KRW 200,000, Defendant Kim Da, and Defendant 3 is punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants shall be confined in the Labor House for the period calculated by converting the amount of KRW 50,000 per day into one day.

To order the Defendants to pay an amount of money equivalent to the above fines.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's 'the defendant's disease

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

On June 29, 2009, the press conference conference held in the presence of the Seoul Cheongdong community service center (hereinafter referred to as the " press conference of this case") is merely a mere press conference, not an outdoor assembly as provided by the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act"). Even if the press conference of this case constitutes an outdoor assembly, the defendant is not the organizer of the outdoor assembly, but merely a simple participant, and thus cannot be deemed a co-principal of the violation of the Act.

2) Unreasonable sentencing

(b) Prosecutors;

1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A) Violation of the State Public Officials Act

The Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) in which the Defendants participated on June 18, 2009 and the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Second Assembly and Demonstration Act”) around July 19, 2009 constitutes a collective act prohibited by Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act.

B) Since the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the non-compliance with the dispersion order was held without a prior report as prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 20(1) of the same Act provides that the head of the competent police authority may demand voluntary dispersion and order dispersion if not complying with the above non-reported assembly without any specific additional requirement, the request for voluntary dispersion by the chief of the police station at the end of the same police station as delegated by the chief of the police station, who is the chief of the police station at the place of the press conference of this case, and three times of dispersion orders are legitimate, and as regards the act of Defendant 's disease' in violation of the lawful dispersion request and dispersion order, the crime of violating the Assembly and Demonstration Act is established pursuant to Articles 20(2) and 24

2) Each unfair sentencing decision

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles regarding Defendant 2's disease

1) Summary of this part of the facts charged

At around 19:30 on June 28, 2009, the Korean Teachers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "Korean Teachers' Union") held the First Provisional Central Execution Committee at the 1st session of the headquarters of the Cheong school. The participants of the 361th Provisional Central Execution Committee, such as Defendant C, decided to hold an assembly without prior reporting in accordance with the strike plan decided by the said Provisional Central Execution Committee. From around 14:05 on June 29, 2009 to 14:05, 20 members and 20 members and 20 members and 20 members and 20 members of the Cheong school, such as Defendant C, including Defendant C, decided to hold an assembly at the front of the Cheongdae-dong, the said 361 Central Committee agreed to guarantee the freedom of expression and conscience, 17,000 teachers' freedom of expression, and the said 14th Central Committee's freedom of expression, and thereby, the said 14 members and 14 members of the Cheongk, etc.

2) Determination

A) Even though the reporter claimed to hold a press conference, if the person was in the form of an assembly, such as making a speech or holding a relief in a state where many and unspecified people can see or hear by preparing a pl cards, microphones, and so on, it shall be deemed as an outdoor assembly as prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act, regardless of the title of the event. Furthermore, the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly should report a certain matter in advance to the chief of the competent police station, thereby protecting a legitimate outdoor assembly by ascertaining the nature and size of the outdoor assembly in advance, etc. by reporting it to the chief of the competent police station, and by preventing infringement of others’ or community interests through the outdoor assembly, it cannot be said that the above duty to report is exempted.

B) Regarding the instant case, the following facts and circumstances that can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, the 20 executives and employees of the previous school, including Defendant Lee Byung-hee, etc., using flas cards and diskettes as stated in the instant facts charged, and using microflass and microflass, thereby creating reliefs such as “the guarantee of freedom of expression”; and was frusing in line with the audience center prior to the audience center; and was frusing in line with the audience. In full view of the developments, purpose, time, place, etc. of the instant reporters’ opinions, regardless of what the name of the said reporters’ association was or whether the said reporters’ opinions were peacefully expressed, the instant reporters’ association aims at forming a common opinion and expressing it externally.

As seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the outdoor assembly is held as an outdoor assembly that is subject to prior duty to report under the Assembly and Demonstration Act in a certain place where erosion control has not been temporarily closed (i.e.,, the instant press conference; hereinafter referred to as the “instant assembly”); and as seen earlier, Defendant 's disease’ committed an act such as provoking and fluoring and fluoring in concert with the organizer or manager of the instant assembly, Defendant 'B' can be sufficiently recognized to have shared the act of implementation in collusion with the organizer or manager of the instant assembly, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that it constitutes a co-principal of the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

As above, the above defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. As to the prosecutor's assertion of mistake and misapprehension of legal principles

1) Summary of each of the facts charged

A) Violation of the State Public Officials Act

Defendant 'A' was issued as a biological teacher to ○ High School on October 1, 1984 and has been working in the above high school until now. From January 1, 2009, he was working as the head of the Daejeon High School's Daejeon Branch and took charge of the affairs of the Jeon school's Daejeon Branch. Defendant 'C' started working as an elementary school teacher upon receiving an order from Pyeong National School around September 1982. From March 2009 to March 2008, he was working as the head of the Jeon school's Daejeon Branch and was in charge of the policy affairs while assisting the head of the branch. Defendant 'A' was issued to the Daejeon High School around 1998, and was in charge of the affairs of the Jeon school's Jeonsung Branch since January 1, 2009.

(1) The First Assembly Declarations of this case

Although a public official does not engage in any collective action for labor campaign or other activities other than public duties, the Jeon school assistant decided on June 9, 200 to criticize the present government's policies at the meeting of the 360 Central Execution Committee held at the Jeon school's headquarters on June 9, 2009 and demanded the reform of state affairs, and at this time, the defendant Lee Byung-hee attended the meeting as the head of the Daejeon Branch. The defendants, who are the full-time officer of the Jeon school Cho Jae-gu Daejeon Branch, agreed to obtain signatures related to the assembly from the members of the Jeon school's Daejeon Branch in accordance with the results of the 360 Central Execution Committee's meeting as above, and accordingly, the defendants sent the list as the 17th anniversary of June 11, 2009 to the 15th of the same month to the 10th of the same month, and the 16th of the Daejeon Branch's order to sign the name of the teacher and the branch by facsimile, and the 16th of the Daejeon Branch's name.

Within the above period, Defendant O'O's participation in the national declaration was notified through the mail of the 'Sick Party', and the Defendants joined the 'Sicking Party' and submitted it to the headquarters for the former school.

위와 같이 각 지부의 서명명단을 취합한 전교조 본부는, 2009. 6. 18. 11:00경 서울 중구 정동에 있는 대한문 앞에서 전교조 위원장인 정요♡와 전교조 중앙집행위원 10여명이 참여한 가운데 기자회견을 열어 '교사 시국 선언 6월 민주항쟁의 소중한 가치가 더 이상 짓밟혀서는 안 됩니다'라는 제목으로 '과거 군사정권 시절을 떠올리게 하는 공권력이 남용으로 민주주의의 보루인 언론, 집회, 표현, 결사의 자유가 심각하게 훼손되고 있으며 인권이 심각하게 유린되고 있습니다. 공안권력을 정치적 목적으로 동원하는 구시대적 형태가 부활되고 있습니다. (중략) 역사의 수레바퀴를 거꾸로 돌리는 이러한 민주주의의 위기는 이명박 정권의 독단과 독선적 정국운영에서 비롯된 것입니다. 정권의 독선은 민생을 위협하고 나아가 민주주의 발전과 함께 발전해온 생태와 평화 등 미래지향적 가치마저 위협하고 있습니다. (중략) 우리는 작년 온 나라를 덮었던 촛불의 물결, 올해 노 대통령의 죽음에 대한 애도의 물결이 시대를 역행하는 현 정부의 독선적 정국운영에 대한 국민적 저항이라 생각합니다. 우리는 국민이 선택한 정부가 국민의 버림을 받는 불행한 역사가 되풀이 되지 않기를 바랍니다. 이에 우리는 오늘 이 선언을 발표하며, 현 정부가 국정을 전면 쇄신하여 국민의 신뢰를 회복해 줄 것을 강력히 촉구합니다'라는 내용의 시국선언문을 '6월 민주항쟁의 소중한 가치를 기리는 정♤♡ 외 16,171명의 교사' 명의로 발표하고, 2009. 6. 22.경 전교조 소식지인 '교 육희망'에 서명교사 17,189명의 명단을 게재하였다. 이로써 피고인들은 국가공무원인 전교조 간부 및 시국선언지지 교사들과 공모하여 공무원으로서 공무 이외의 일을 위한 집단적 행위를 하였다.

(2) Assembly of Second Declarations of this case

교육과학기술부(이하 '교과부'라고만 한다)가 2009. 6. 26. 시·도부 교육감 회의를 개최하여 이 사건 제1차 시국선언과 관련하여 전교조위원장 정♤♡를 포함한 간부 88명을 검찰에 고발하고, 시·도교육청에 중징계 등의 조치를 취하도록 요청하자 위와 같은 교과부의 방침에 반발한 전교조는 2009. 6. 28. 19:30경 전교조 본부 제1회의실에서 제361차 임시 중앙집행위원회를 개최하였다. 전교조 대전지부장인 피고인 이 '병을'을 비롯한 전교조 중앙집행위원 25명이 위 중앙집행위원회에 참석하였으며, 전교조 기획관리실장인 노&요가 서기를 맡았다. 위 중앙집행위원회에서는, 전교조 정책실장인 동○★이 제361차 임시 중앙집행위원회 회의 자료에 따라 교과부의 징계방침 발표와 관련하여 경과보고를 하였고, 이어서 전교조 위원장인 정아가 「표현의 자유사수 및 전교조 시국선언 징계 대응 투쟁계획의 건」을 안건으로 상정하였고, 위 안건은 위 중앙집행위원들의 찬성으로 원안대로 통과되었는데, 그 주요내용은 「① 전교조 본부를 투쟁본부 체제로 전환하고, ② 2009. 6. 29. 14:00경 서울 종로구 청운동 주민센터 앞에서 기자회견의 형식을 빌어 미신고 집회를 개최한 후 항의서한을 전달한다는 명분으로 청와대 방면 이동을 시도하며, ③ 2009. 7. 5. 14:00경 서울역 광장에서 3,000명 이상의 조합원이 참가한 가운데 전국교사결의대회를 개최하고, ④ 2009. 6. 29.부터 같은 해 7. 15.까지 1차 시국선언 참여자를 포함하여 최대 3만 명 이상이 참여하는 '민주주의 사수, 표현의 자유 보장, 시국선언 탄압 중지 촉구' 교사 2차 시국선언을 조직하여 발표하며, ⑤ 2009. 7. 19. 공무원과 교사들이 연대하여 집회를 개최하는 것」이었다. 한편, 전교조 대전지부는 2009. 6. 29. 전교조 대전지부회의실에서 제340차 대전지부집행위원회 및 제5차 상임집행위원회 연석회의를 개최하여 전교조 본부 제361차 임시 중앙집행위원회 결과에 따른 집행사항을 심의하였고, 2009. 7. 3. 전교조 대전지부 회의실에서 분회장, 대의원, 현 지부지회 일꾼, 전활동가 총회를 개최하여 2차 시국선언의 의미 및 추진방안을 공유하는 한편, 시국선언 참가자를 조직하기로 결의하였다. 전교조는 2009. 6. 30. 전교조 본부 메일 계정(mail@ktu.or.kr)을 이용하여 전교조 소속 전 교사들에게 전교조 위원장 정♤♡ 명의의 「위원장 서신」이라는 제목의 이메일을 발송하여 2차 시국선언에 참여하여 줄 것을 요청하면서 시국선언문과 서명용지를 배포하였고, 또한 전교조 본부 대변인 엄☆★은 2009. 7. 2. 「전교조, '민주주의 수호 교사선언' 추진」이라는 제목으로 "표현의 자유보장, 시국선언 교사에 대한 징계철회, 교육복지 확대, 경쟁만능 교육정책 중단" 등을 내용으로 하는 2차 시국선언을 조직한다는 내용의 보도자료를 시국선언문 초안과 함께 전교조 홈페이지에 게시하였다. 피고인들은 전교조 본부로부터 하달된 시국선언문을 전교조 대전지부 홈페이지에 서명용지를 게시하거나, 대전 참교육통신 09-27(2009. 6. 30.), 09-29(2009. 7. 6.)를 통해 2차 시국선언 학교단위 서명 안내 및 시국선언 선전지 안내공문을 발송하는 등의 방법으로 상당수가 공무원인 전교조 대전지부 소속 조합원들을 상대로 2차 시국선언 참여를 요구하였으며, 2009. 7. 16.까지 전교조 대전지부 소속 교원들로부터 서명을 한 서명용지를 받거나 시국선언에 참여한다는 의사를 확인한 후 참여자 명단을 취합하여 전교조 본부에 보고하였고, 전교조 투쟁본부 조직팀은 이를 취합하였다.

그 후 전교조 위원장 정♤♡ 등 조합원 20여명은 2009. 7. 19. 14:00경부터 같은 날 14:20경까지 서울 중구 태평로 1가 소재 서울광장에서 "전교조는 시국선언의 정당함을 확인하기 위한 지속적인 노력과 고발 및 징계를 철회하기 위한 강력한 투쟁을 전개할 것이다"라는 등의 내용이 포함된 기자회견문을 낭독하고, 정♤♡ 외 28,634명의 교사 명의로 된 '민주주의 수호교사 선언'이라는 제목의 시국선언문을 발표하였다. 그리고 전교조는 같은 날 전교조 인터넷 홈페이지(www.eduhope.net)에 위 기자회견문과 시국선언문을 게시하였다. 위 시국선언문의 주요내용은 교과부의 징계방침을 위헌적인 공권력 남용이라고 비판하고, 헌법상 표현의 자유보장 및 시국선언 교사에 대한 고발·징계 방침 철회를 요구하면서 이 사건 제1차 시국선언의 정당성을 주장하는 것이었다. 이어서 전교조는 시국선언 참가자를 추가로 확인하여 2009. 7. 23. 전교조 홈페이지에 시국선언에 동참한 교사 28,711명의 명단을 담은 동영상을 공개하였다.

2009. 7. 19. 16:00부터 같은 날 17:00까지 서울역 광장에서 전교조 위원장 정♤♡ 등은 민주노동당 ○○○ 의원, ○○○ 의원, 민주당 ○○○ 의원, ○○○ 진보신당 대표, ○○○ 전국민주노동조합총연맹(이하 '민노총'이라 한다) 위원장, ○○○ 전 민노총 위원장, 전교조 소속 조합원 1,100명, 전국민주공무원노동조합(이하 '민공노'라 한다) 소속 조합원 150명, 전국공무원노동조합(이하 '전공노'라 한다) 소속 조합원 100명, 법원공무원노동조합(이하 '법원노조'라 한다) 소속 조합원 50명이 참가한 가운데 전교조 사무처장 임이의 사회로 '7. 19. 제2차 범국민대회'의 사전행사인 '교사 · 공무원 시국선언 탄압 규탄대회'를 개최하였다. 전교조 위원장 정♤♡는 민공노 위원장 정, 전공노 위원장 손○○, 법원노조 위원장 오0①과 함께 단상에 올라간 후, 위 정와 위 손○○의 연설 이후 "민주주의를 원상태로 회복하는데 노력하겠다. 공무원, 교사, 국민 모두 힘을 모아 현 정부를 심판하자"라고 연설을 하였다. 한편, 집회 과정에서 집회 참가자들은 "온 국민의 시국선언으로 MB악법 저지하자"라는 구호를 외치고, '시국 선언, 탄압중단', '4대강 죽이기 절대 안돼', '언론악법 저지'라는 구호가 기재된 종이 모자를 쓰고, '민주주의 죽이지 말라', 'MB악법 이제 그만, 대한민국을 살려줘', '4대강 삽질 STOP' 등과 같이 현 정부를 비난하는 주장이 기재된 피켓을 들고, '토론의 성지 아고라', '민주당 서울특별시당', '창조한국당', '진보신당', '전국운수사업노동조합', '다함 께', '대안포럼' 등 정당, 노동단체, 사회단체의 깃발을 들고 집회에 참가하였다. 피고인들은 규탄대회가 진행되는 동안 서울역 광장 등지에서 구호를 제창하는 방법 등으로 교사 ·공무원 시국선언 탄압 규탄대회에 참가하였다.

By doing these series of actions, the Defendants conspired with the members of the former Telecommunication Union, the civilian labor union, the major labor union, and the court labor union, thereby collectively engaging in activities other than official duties as a public official.

B) On June 29, 2009, from around 14:05 on June 29, 2009 to 361: 5, the participants of the 361th Special Central Committee on Execution of Assembly and Demonstration due to the non-compliance with the dispersion order, decided to hold a non-reported meeting before the Cheongdae-dong community service center in accordance with the strike plan decided by the committee for the above provisional measures; 20 members of the 14th Special Committee on Execution of Assembly and Demonstration, including Defendant 2, including Defendant 2, including Defendant 4, without prior report, continued to comply with the 4th Special Committee on Execution of Assembly and Demonstration's Voluntary dispersion order, including Defendant 4: The 1:5th Special Committee on Execution of Assembly and Demonstration, including Defendant 4: The 1: the 4th Special Committee on Execution of Assembly and Demonstration, which did not comply with the demand of the 15th Special Police Station on the ground that Defendant 4: The 1:5th Special Police Station on the ground that Defendant 1 and the 4th Special Police Station continued.

As a result, the defendant's "the defendant's disease" in collusion with the participants of the above 361 Provisional Central Committee, and did not dissolve without delay even after being ordered to do so as the participants of the unreported outdoor assembly.

2) The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the assembly of this case did not constitute a crime of violating the Assembly and Demonstration Act, since the assembly of this case did not violate the duty of political neutrality of the public official or adversely affect the students who are education beneficiaries, and it cannot be deemed that the assembly of this case did not constitute an act of affecting the public interest, such as impeding the official duty of the public official or neglecting the duty of care. Thus, the assembly of this case does not constitute a crime of violating the State Public Officials Act. ② Order of dispersion pursuant to Article 20 (1) 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not constitute a crime of violating Article 20 (1) 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

3) Determination of the immediate deliberation

A) Violation of the State Public Officials Act

(1) The main text of Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act provides that public officials shall not engage in any collective action for any labor campaign or other work other than public service. Here, "collective action for any work other than public service" should be interpreted as "collective action that has an influence on neglecting duty of care for the purpose contrary to public interest" by comprehensively taking into account Article 21(1) of the Constitution guaranteeing the freedom of speech, publication, assembly and association, the constitutional principles, the purport of the State Public Officials Act, the duty of good faith under the State Public Officials Act, duty of care, duty of care, etc. In addition, in determining whether an act constitutes a collective action as above, it should be carefully examined whether not only the reason why the act is under the pretext of the act, but also the attitude of the act, the time, place, method, the detailed expression of the act, etc. in question, and whether the act may affect the existence of a purpose contrary to public interest and the duty of care.

(2) Meanwhile, Article 7(2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea provides, “The status of a public official and political neutrality shall be guaranteed as prescribed by Act” and Article 31(4) provides, “The autonomy of education”.

The expertise, political neutrality, and autonomy of university are guaranteed under the conditions as prescribed by the Act. Accordingly, the State Public Officials Act and the Public Official Election Act provide for certain restrictions on the political freedom of public officials. For teachers, education shall be operated to fulfill their functions according to the original purpose of education, and it shall not be used as a means to spread political, political, or personal prejudice. Article 3 (Prohibition of Political Activities) of the Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions (hereinafter referred to as "Act on the Establishment, Operation, etc. of Teachers' Unions") provides for certain restrictions on the political freedom of each teacher.

(3) In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the instant case, the following facts can be acknowledged.

(A) On the front and middle part of the First Declarations, our teachers are required to add the history and value of the dispute in June, 200, and the situation where the development of democracy, which was put on the speed of sacrifice and sacrifice of the people, is going against, “The freedom of speech, assembly, expression, and association with democracy is seriously damaged due to the abuse of public power that makes it possible to leave the military regime,” and “the relationship between the investigation of various candlelights and the PD pocket book.”

The investigation of people is being carried out in an unreasonable manner beyond their common sense, the old behavior of the President who mobilized public security power for political purposes became a cause of the former President of the labor modernization, the monet fire incident, the 's online fire incident', the 'the right to life of ordinary people, including non-regular workers, has become unfolded due to the operation of the independent shipping state, and the old government's operation of the independent shipping state has been faced with the uneasia, and the 'the situation where the reconciliation and peace between the two Koreas who have been continuously developed has become seriously threatened,' and the latter part is written in the past, 'the fallelight'', 'the 2nd century', 'the 196th century', 'the 196th century', and 'the 2nd century', 'the 196th century', and 'the 2nd century', and 'the 2nd century', 'the 196th century.

(B) The Assembly and Demonstration Act’s second Declaration’s first and second Declaration’s second Declaration’s position on the state is unconstitutional abuse of public authority that destroys the basic democratic order, and the Assembly and Demonstration Act’s second Declaration’s subsequent Declaration’s first and second Declaration’s first Declaration’s first Declaration’s previous Declaration’s position is stated as follows: “No doubt may be raised as to how to teach democracy; and Korean teachers have no choice but to see that Germany’s democracy as a democracy; it leaves an open history of the past military Germany’s appearance; and it can not cause definite and shock; “A large volume of teachers of the City Declaration’s declaration is unconstitutional abuse of public authority that destroys the basic democratic order; and “I have to withdraw” in the latter part of the Declaration’s second Declaration’s subsequent report contains the contents that the majority of the teachers have finded.

(C) Each assembly of this case was decided by the Assembly and Demonstration Committee (the President, the Chief Vice-Chairperson, the Vice-Chairperson, the Chief of Policy Office, the Chief of Compilation, the Chief of Compilation, and the Chief of City/Do branch. The Assembly and Demonstration Committee shall be composed of the officers of the headquarters). ② The Assembly and Demonstration Committee shall prepare the Assembly and Demonstration at the former Telecommunication Headquarters and send it to 16 branches nationwide. ③ The former Telecommunication Officer shall post the Notice on Signature on the Internet homepage, ③ by means of e-mail, facsimile, facsimile, etc., sent a notice on the sign of the Si Council and Demonstration, and then sent the notice and signature form to each branch. ④ The former Telecommunication Headquarters announced a notice on the Internet homepage of the Assembly and Demonstration by combining all the signatures put together with each branch as above, and ⑤ In particular, the second Declaration was conducted as a series of public officials and participants including the Defendants’ sign and participants’ participation in the Assembly and Demonstration.

(라) 이 사건 각 시국선언이 있을 무렵은, 2009. 5. 23. 노무현 전 대통령 서거 직후인 2009. 5. 28. 함◀ 신부 등 사회인사 100인이 정부에 대한 사과를 요구하는 시국선언을 발표한 것을 시작으로 2009. 6. 9. 민노총이 민생파탄, 민주주의 퇴보, 공안탄압정책 폐기, 국정운영의 전면적 전환을 요구하는 시국선언을 단행하는 등 사회 각계각층에서 현 정권에 대한 비판을 담은 같은 취지의 시국선언이 다수 발표되던 시점이었고, 범국민대회가 6. 10.에, 그 산하에 전교조를 두고 있는 민노총의 결의 대회가 6. 13.에 각 개최되던 시점이었다.

(4) On the basis of the above-mentioned facts or facts, it is sufficient to view that the Defendants’ act was not in violation of the laws and regulations on the freedom of expression, and thus constitutes an act of infringement of the fundamental rights of students, and thus, it is not an act of expression against the fundamental rights and interests of the public, and thus, it is not an act of expression in violation of the laws and regulations on the freedom of expression as well as an act of expression that is against the fundamental rights and interests of the public. It is reasonable to view that the act of expression as an act of expression is not an act of expression in violation of the fundamental rights and interests of the public, and thus, it is not an act of expression that is against the fundamental rights and interests of the public. It is not an act of expression that is against the fundamental rights and interests of the public, such as the fundamental rights and interests of the public. It is not an act of expression that is against the fundamental rights and interests of the public, but an act of expression that is against the fundamental rights of the public.

In the end, it is reasonable to view each assembly and demonstration of this case as a collective act for purposes other than public duties prohibited under Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act. Thus, the prosecutor's above ground for pointing this out is the same.

B) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to non-compliance with the dispersion order

In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, as seen in the above 2. A. 2.2, the "Defendant Byung" started the assembly of this case without a prior report in collusion with the organizer and manager around June 29, 2009. The chief of the Sejong Police Station, who is a legitimate authority, ordered voluntary dispersion and three or more dispersion orders from around 14:35 to 14:55 on the same day. Nonetheless, the participants of the assembly of this case, including Defendant Byung's disease, asserted that they would deliver the letter of objection to the President, and argued that they would deliver it, and that the bill of this case, including Defendant Byung's disease, were presented with relief, and the fact that the assembly of this case is terminated by giving the participants of the above preparation career, is sufficiently recognized. According to this, the defendants' assertion that the above assembly of this case is in violation of the order of dispersion under Article 202 (2) 4 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act without a legitimate dispersion order, is not clearly justified.

3. Conclusion

If so, the prosecutor's appeal is reasonable, without examining the defendant's objection to the defendant's disease and the prosecutor's respective arguments of unfair sentencing, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and it is again decided as follows.

As stated in the subparagraphs of paragraphs 2. A. 1 and 2.b. 1 of the Criminal History.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. A protocol concerning the examination of suspect against the defendant's 's disease';

1. 하△☆, 유△▲에 대한 각 경찰진술조서

1. Each accusation;

1. Each investigation report (report attached to a personnel card, attachment of a notice box on the website of the Daejeon District Office, attachment of the minutes of the 360 Central Execution Committee, attachment of the contents of e-mail confiscated, attachment of the e-mail confiscated materials, attachment of the accusation note, and report attached to the sending note of the case, attachment of information, attachment of a CD attachment report, attachment of a CD attachment, attachment of documentary evidence on July 19, 2009, attachment of e-mail confiscated materials, attachment of documentary evidence, attachment of a photo on July 19, 2009, attachment of evidence evidence against the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, attachment of this 'Sick' attachment, attachment of a copy of a list of executive members of the Daejeon District Office, etc., attachment of printed materials on the website of the 2009 Central Branch Office of the Daejeon District Branch of the Daejeon District Office, attachment of printed materials on the website of the NAJ branch of the Jeon

1. Application of evidentiary photographs (Evidence photographs) Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning facts constituting an offense, and objection to the choice of punishment: Each of the State Public Officials Act Article 84 and Article 66(1) of the same Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 22(2) and Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 24 subparagraph 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 20(2) and Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30(2) of the Criminal Act, Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 84 and Article 66(1) of the State Public Officials Act, Article 30(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 30(2) and (1) of the same Act, and Article 66(1) of the Punishment Act, respectively.

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Detention in a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

1. Order of provisional payment;

Even if there is a belief that the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that their behavior will result in serving the public interest, the behavior to carry out the belief in violation of the positive law would reject multi-original and relative value in a democratic society as a result of rejecting the rule of law that must be realized in order to move toward a democratic society, and as a result, it is highly likely to criticize the Defendants. Although the Defendants were punished due to the act of disregarding the positive law or committed the act in the investigation stage, they again had the record of being sentenced in the first place in the investigation stage, the crimes are inferior. The Defendants, as the full-time officer of the Jeonsung Daejeon Branch, led the signing of the respective assembly report in this case, and the degree of participation in the second assembly after the Second Declaration was held, and there is no disadvantage to the Defendants, but there is no error in their actions, and there is no reason to see that the Defendants violated the Constitution or the contents of the Assembly's punishment in this case.

The presiding judge, judge and public prosecutor;

Judges Lee Jin-sung

Judge Lee Jae-il