(영문) 대법원 2015.9.10. 선고 2014도6393 판결

1. According to Article 12(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 12(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the head of the competent police authority may prohibit an assembly or demonstration on the road or restrict the assembly or demonstration with conditions attached thereto, if deemed necessary for maintaining traffic order. However, if the assembly or demonstration on the road is restricted with conditions attached thereto, the head of the competent police authority shall specifically state such conditions in writing. The notification of conditions for maintaining traffic order as provided by Article 12(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is different from the notification of prohibition and restriction of the assembly or demonstration as provided by Article 8 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. In light of the detailed methods and developments leading up to the notification of traffic condition as provided by Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the relationship between the recipient and the organizer, if the organizer reaches an objective state where the organizer becomes aware of the contents thereof, the notification of prohibition and restriction under Article 8 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act shall be deemed to be valid even if it did not meet the methods of service on the road.

2. In full view of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the duly admitted evidence, the following circumstances are revealed.

(a) On August 23, 2011, the Korean Metal Trade Union (hereinafter referred to as the “MMMMMM”) around 18:05: Around August 23, 201, the head of the Seoul Regional Police Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “KMMMMM”) submitted a total of 45 places, including a one-time exit from August 27, 2011 to August 28, 2011; a total of 00:0-23:50-59, an independent railroad station: The organizer: the head of the I Organization, the person responsible for contact: H, the number of persons scheduled to participate: 30,000 persons (on the agenda, the number of persons scheduled to participate in the demonstration), the method of demonstration is scheduled to be carried out in various ways, such as a tobacco, relief, speech, publicity, cultural event, entertainment, etc.; and the report on the use of the IndiaM, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “MMMM”) by means of an independent.

B. On August 25, 201, based on the provisions of Articles 8(1) and (2), 11, and 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the Seoul Local Police Agency notified the Seoul Local Police Agency that the remainder of outdoor assembly ( demonstration or progress) except for two sections, such as the independent door 1 ? Hanjin Heavy Industries, is prohibited. In addition, on August 26, 2011, the Seoul Local Police Agency’s name “Matters to be observed: 2 parallels, which are possible due to the failure to be prohibited during the reported assembly ( demonstration, progress): from the independent door 1 ? one going out in the Hanjin Han Jin Line 5 Station, 5 lanes in the Seodaemun-gu, Seoul Western Station ? 11, and 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, excluding the bus exclusive lanes, should be modified into two lanes in the direction of prohibition of traffic flow (hereinafter referred to as “the direction of progress excluding the bus exclusive lanes).” On the following grounds, it is necessary to promptly organize the two-lane of cultural events and progress.

D. On August 26, 201, Seoul Southern Police Station Information and affiliated slope E sent the instant notice, and found it as a separate building of metal labor union building in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, where a metal labor union office is located, and called “Grano-2” by calling to the metal labor union F, explaining the content of the said notice, and explaining the method of delivery, and as F said “F posted in mail,” the said notice was posted to the metal labor union mail.

3. Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, in the instant case, it can be recognized that, at the request of F, E input the instant notification form setting the conditions for maintaining traffic order in the metal trade union, metal trade unions were placed in an objective condition that enables people to know the content of the instant notification, and therefore, it can be deemed that the instant notification form lawful notification form is the organizer of the metal trade union.

4. Nevertheless, the court below held that the demonstration of this case is not subject to the restriction set forth in the conditions for maintaining traffic order as stated in the notice, on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the notice of this case was legally notified under E, and that the demonstration of this case does not have any limitation on the conditions for maintaining traffic order as stated in the notice of this case. The court below did not examine whether the demonstration of this case was seriously in violation of the conditions in light of traffic situation, etc., whether the defendant's participation in the act of serious violation, whether the defendant actually caused traffic obstruction by participating in the act of this case, and whether the defendant can be held liable for a crime as a co-principal for traffic obstruction in light of the circumstances of participation or participation of the defendant, etc., without examining whether the demonstration of this case can not be deemed to have remarkably escaped from the original report prior to its granting, or that

Therefore, in so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on notification of conditions for maintaining traffic order under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The allegation contained in the grounds of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

5. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below, and remand the case to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.