All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of obstruction of business among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the rules of logic and experience and exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on obstruction of business

B. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the Defendant was guilty of entering a structure by multiple force among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds stated in its reasoning, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of entering a structure.

2. In light of the purport of the Assembly and Demonstration Act’s grounds of appeal by the prosecutor, whether an outdoor assembly or demonstration actually held constitutes “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the reported purpose, date, time, place, method, etc.” under Article 16(4)3 of the same Act shall be determined by whether the assembly or demonstration clearly deviates from the scope expected by the report, and thus it is extremely difficult to achieve the purpose of the report system. In determining this, the freedom of assembly or demonstration is a citizen’s fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution; the organizer of the assembly, etc. is merely a person who has anticipated the detailed matters of the method of the demonstration in advance and makes it difficult for him/her to report it without any delay.