[1] Matters to be considered in assessing the act of mission as an act of disturbance in neighboring areas under the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the judgment of the court below was erroneous in the incomplete hearing on the ground that the act of missionary activity conducted in subway train train is an act of disturbance in neighboring areas under

[1] Freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 20 (1) of the Constitution includes freedom of mission for the purpose of promoting a new religion and for the purpose of propagating one's own religion at a public place, etc. The dissemination of doctrine to another person as a matter of course constitutes the freedom of mission. Therefore, in addition to the permitted scope and contents of freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be carefully paid so as not to infringe the people's rights in the application of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act. Considering the legislative spirit as stipulated in Article 4 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, in order to determine whether the act of mission by voice or various sound organizations to attract another's attention and spread his assertion constitutes a constituent element of an act disturbing the neighboring nature as stipulated in Article 1 (26) of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, it should be compared with the specific time and place of the act of mission, persons subject to mission, individual contents and method of mission, etc., to the extent that such act deviates from the scope of ordinary mission and thereby, it should be strictly determined by the degree of legal interests.

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that the judgment of the court below was erroneous in the incomplete hearing on the ground that the act of missionary activity conducted in subway train Gu constitutes an act of disturbance in the neighboring district under

[1] Article 20(1) of the Constitution, Article 1 subparag. 26, and Article 4 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act / [2] Article 1 subparag. 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 96Da19246, 19253 decided September 6, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2983)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 2003No3630 Delivered on June 26, 2003

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The freedom of religion guaranteed by Article 20(1) of the Constitution includes the freedom of mission to promote the religion of one’s own belief and to identify new believers (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da19246, 19253, Sept. 6, 196). The dissemination of doctrine to another person for the purpose of propaganda of one’s own religion in a public place, etc. is naturally constituted the content of such freedom of mission. Therefore, in addition to the permitted scope and contents of freedom of religion guaranteed by the Constitution, it should be careful attention to prevent unjust infringement on the people’s rights in the application of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act. Considering the legislative spirit as stipulated in Article 4 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, in order to determine whether the act of mission by voice or various sound machinery using voice or various sound machinery constitutes a constituent element of adjacent acts as stipulated in Article 1 subparag. 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, it should be compared to the specific time and scope of individual act of mission, such as where the act was committed through a strict comparison of the legal interests of the person in question.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, on December 9, 199, the court below acknowledged the charges of this case that the defendant caused disturbance to the neighboring area by stating that "I am in good sound to perform missionary work within the subway 2 subway trains located in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but I am cele one cele one cele one cele one cele one cele one cele another," and that the defendant caused disturbance to the neighboring area in the same manner as above at the same place around March 27, 201, taking into account the defendant's statements in the court and the police and the control reports bound to the investigation records, and determined that these acts of the defendant constitute an act of disturbance to the neighboring area provided for in Article 1 subparagraph 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act.

However, the contents of the defendant's legal statement or the protocol of interrogation of the police suspect, which the court below was admitted as evidence of guilt, are merely limited to the fact that the defendant, at the above temporary location, engaged in missionary activities like the facts charged against the former passengers for the purpose of conducting missionary activities. Furthermore, it is not recognized that his act goes beyond the scope of missionary activities and does not constitute a nearby disturbance as stipulated in Article 1 subparagraph 26 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act. Furthermore, even if examining the remaining statement of control of evidence and the report on offender exposure, it is difficult to find out whether the defendant's specific contents and voice of the act of mission and degree of disturbance at the above time and place, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the facts charged against the defendant on the record.

Nevertheless, in this case where there is no data to examine the contents and method of the defendant's specific missionary act at the time and place specified in the facts charged, the extent of disturbance, the right to use public facilities by the passengers boarding the train, how much it exceeded the limit of admission, and whether the defendant's missionary act causes an obvious danger to the maintenance of public order, etc., the court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the defendant engaged in missionary act within the ebbbbbbbbbbbb, etc., in which there is no evidence to examine it, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the freedom of religion, the freedom of missionary act, and the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, which points this out, by misapprehending

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded 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.

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)