All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. “An assembly subject to security and regulation under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which is a violation of the Act due to a failure to comply with an order of dispersion on May 10, 2012 (hereinafter “Act”) refers to an assembly subject to security and regulation under the Act.”

In full view of the constitutional value and function of the freedom of assembly, the constitutional spirit that declared the prohibition against permission for assembly, and the purport of the prior reporting system on outdoor assembly and demonstration, etc., even if Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not stipulate separate requirements for dispersion in the context of an outdoor assembly or demonstration subject to dispersion order, the said outdoor assembly or demonstration may be ordered to dissolve pursuant to Article 24 subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act only if it clearly poses a direct danger to another person’s legal interest or public safety and order, and only if the outdoor assembly or demonstration refuses to comply with such requirements, it may be punished pursuant to Article 24 subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

(2) The lower court found the Defendant guilty of violating the Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order on May 10, 2012 among the facts charged in the instant case, on the following grounds: (a) comprehensively taking account of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant’s participation in the assembly on May 10, 2012 constituted an outdoor assembly under the Act even though the assembly was held in the form of a press conference; and (b) the foregoing outdoor assembly held without reporting under the Act obviously poses a direct threat to the legal interest relating to the use of another’s road or public peace and order; and (c) thus, it constitutes a dispersion order.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the legal principles as seen earlier and the evidence duly admitted, the lower court.