2011Gohap813,814(Joint). Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties

(b) General traffic obstruction;

(c) Interference with business;

(d) Performance of official duties;

Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act

(Joint Residential Intrusion)

(f) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

1. (a) b. (c) d. f. A;

2. b. (f) B

3. A. b. e. C

Route germs, Kim Sung-dong (Public Prosecution), and Domina decoration (public trial)

Law Firm D (For the defendant)

Attorney E, F, G, H, I

Attorney J (Defendant A and C)

Attorney K (Defendant A and C)

L Law Firm (For the defendant)

Attorney M

Law Firm N (for Defendant A and C)

Attorney 0, P, Q, R, S, T, U,V, W, X

Attorneys Y (for the defendant A and C)

Attorney Z (for the defendant)

Law Firm AA (For the defendant)

Attorney AB, AC, AD, AE

Law Firm AF (for the defendant)

Attorney AG

Attorney AH (for the defendant A)

Attorney AI (for the defendant)

Attorney J (Defendant B)

AK Law Firm (for Defendant B)

Attorney AL, AM,N, AO, AP, Q, AR

Law Firm AS (Defendant B)

Attorney AT

Law Firm AU (For the defendant C)

Attorney AV

Attorney W (Defendant A and C)

December 2, 2014

1. Defendant A

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for two years.

Of the facts charged against Defendant A, ① (i) the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the event of an unreported assembly as of July 30, 201, July 31, 2011, August 27, 201, October 8, 2011, and October 9, 201, among the facts charged against Defendant A, the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order as of June 12, 201, (ii) the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order as of August 28, 201, (iv) the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the event of the nighttime Demonstration as of August 28, 201, and (v) each general traffic obstruction as of October 8, 2011, among the facts charged against Defendant A, is dismissed.

The summary of the judgment of innocence part against Defendant A shall be publicly notified.

2. Defendant B

Defendant B shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,00,000. Where Defendant B fails to pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

An order of provisional payment of an amount equivalent to the above fine is issued. Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the charge against the violation of the Act on the Assembly and Demonstration due to the failure to comply with the dispersion Order dated June 12, 2011 is acquitted.

Of the facts charged against Defendant B, the prosecution against the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the participation in the night demonstration on July 9, 201 is dismissed.

The summary of the judgment of innocence part against Defendant B shall be publicly notified.

3. Defendant C. Defendant C. shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,00,000. Where Defendant C did not pay the above fine, the above Defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting KRW 100,000 into one day.

Of the facts charged against Defendant C, the fact that the general traffic obstruction occurred on June 12, 201, the general traffic obstruction occurred as of June 12, 201, ③ the injury resulting from the obstruction of special performance of official duties, ④ the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the hosting of a non-reported assembly on July 30, 201 and July 31, 201, is acquitted, respectively.

Of the facts charged against Defendant C, the prosecution against the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the holding of the night demonstration on July 9, 201 is dismissed.

The summary of the judgment of not guilty part against Defendant C shall be publicly notified.

Criminal facts

[Judgment of the court below]

1. Progress of conflict between AX-management and labor;

AX Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "AX") employs 1,378 employees (as of November 10, 201, 10, 94 employees including layoffs, and 808 employees) and manufactures special vessels such as naval ships and guard boat, etc. from May 6, 1974 to be designated as major defense industrial enterprises of the Republic of Korea. AX proceeds from the second half of 2008 for managerial reasons, it reported the human resources adjustment plan due to managerial reasons to the labor office on December 15, 201, and notified it to the AZAX branch (hereinafter referred to as "labor union"). On January 13, 201, it notified the workers of the pre-announcement of dismissal and dismissed them on February 17, 2011.

Accordingly, from June 9, 2010 to December 17, 2010, Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission had engaged in a complete strike over 88 times. From December 20, 2010, Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission began to work in an indefinite front strike. From December 28, 2010, BA (hereinafter referred to as "BA")'s instruction member BA (hereinafter referred to as "BA") started to work in BC and began to work in the first place on January 20, 201 and on January 20, 201, the Trade Union and Labor Relations Commission refused to comply with a lock-out request and on February 14, 201, and continued to withdraw from ABD's employment and labor-management meetings and to withdraw from ABD's employment and labor-management meetings and to continue to work in the first place on June 27, 2011.

2. The defendant A with the progress of so-called "1 to 5th BE" proposed to hold a so-called "BE" to address AXY (hereinafter referred to as "AY") BC in order to support BB in the Internet name "BF" (hereinafter referred to as "BF"), such as holding a national bus or gathering in Busan and proceeding to BC, and accordingly holding a so-called "BE" to address AX labor-management issues. Accordingly, there was an assembly or demonstration in Busan and Seoul over five times.

The first BE from June 11, 201, 23:00 to June 14:00 of the following day attended and proceeded with a total of 700 persons in the AY front and inside the BG located in the Young-gu, Busan.

On July 9, 201, from around 18:00 to around 15:30 of the following day, the second BE attended 7,000 persons in front of the Busan East-dong and the members of the Busan Y BH located in the Seocho-gu, Busan Y, and from around 18:00 on July 30, 201 to 09:00 of the following day, the third BE attended 2,200 persons in front of the Busan Y Park, the roads adjacent to the Busan Y Seodong-dong, Busan Y-dong, the Busan Y-dong Police Agency.

The fourth BE from August 28, 201 to November 25, 2011, 3,500 persons were present and proceeded in the Cheongsan-dong in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and its first class and independent park.

The 5th BE attended from October 8, 201 to October 50 of the next day, from around 19:00 to around 10:50 of the following day, 2,000 persons were attended and proceeded at the roads in front of the department store, and at the squares of the Busan Station.

【Criminal Facts】

[2011Gohap813] Defendant A recruited participants throughout the country through press dogs, Internet car pages, SNSs (twitters, etc.) and organized so-called BE Planning Group (hereinafter referred to as the " Planning Group") for the purpose of carrying out an assembly or demonstration claiming the agricultural support of BB and the withdrawal of layoff AX after gathering participants through buses, etc., and planned and operated BE twice in total as follows.

1. The criminal facts of Defendant A;

A. Criminal facts related to the first BE (from June 11, 201 to June 12, 201)

On May 19, 2011, the defendant, through the BJ bulletin board "BJ" BF CF C. On May 19, 201, the defendant proposed the so-called ‘BE' that citizens should gather to support the activities of the BB in the agricultural community because the AY is illegal layoff, and the action of the BB in the agricultural community is just, so that citizens should gather, and all people who think in the national community enter AY area and hold assemblies under BC, notified the defendant to pay 30,000 won of the participation cost to the head of the Tong in the name of the defendant B. On May 30, 2011, the defendant actively promoted the BE assembly through the above Internet car page and Twitter.

On June 9, 2011, the Defendant started the Seoul around 18:30 on June 11, 201 with respect to the first BE proceeding, and announced a specific plan to the effect that the Defendant’s arrival at Busan around 23:00, at around 24:00, at the night of the candlelight to BC at around 24:00, at the night of June 12, 02:0, from around 02:0, from around 11:0 to 14:00, from around 00, to end the cultural distress site, at the end of 14:0-14:0 to 00, and at the end of 14:0 to 15:00.

As above, the defendant proposed the first BE, and prepared a plan to prepare and proceed with the Planning Group, and collected total of KRW 1,048,00 from the participants, and committed the following crimes on the date of the first BE.

1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and general traffic obstruction due to the hosting of night demonstration

No one shall hold any outdoor assembly or demonstration from 00:0 to 00:00. However, the Defendant proposed the first BE as above, set up a prior proceeding plan with the planning group, and set up with the participants of the demonstration who arrive in Busan to hold an assembly in AY, together with the participants of the demonstration who arrive in Busan, from 0:17 on June 12, 201 to 01:25 on the 70-lanes of Busan Young-dong from 00 to 01:25 on the 15-lanes of Seoul, Suwonwon, Suwon, Pyeong, Gwangju, Jeonju, and Ycheon, 700 participants of the demonstration who embarked on 15 bus at the 15-lane intersections in Seoul, Suwon-gu, Busan, Gwangju, Jeoncheon, etc., and 1 km away from the 15-lanes prior to the direction of progress. The Defendant was prohibited from holding the demonstration at night, thereby interfering with the traffic by means of the demonstration.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence)

On June 12, 2011, at around 01:25, the Defendant, in response to an order of dispersion before AY, installed containers, etc. at all entrances, such as YB, and placed security guards, thereby making it difficult for the Defendant to enter AYBC. On June 12, 201, the Defendant intruded AY without permission, with approximately 500 participants of the demonstration, and 30 staff members of AX Subdivision who were in the AY branch, waiting in front of the vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vege with the fenced veges from the wall.

Accordingly, the defendant invadedd the building owned by the victim AX in common with 500 persons who participated in the demonstration.

나. 2차 BE 관련 범죄사실(2011. 7. 9. ~ 7. 10.) 피고인은 1차 BE 행사 직후인 2011. 6. 15.경 위 BB 이 트위터에 'BE 한 번만 더 와주면 저도 살아 내려 갈 수 있을 것 같은데요'라는 글을 올린 것을 기화로, 같은 날 '2차 BE 깔깔깔 기획단' 전체회의 결정을 통해 '정리해고 비정규직 없는 세상을 위한 2 차 BE를 타러가요'라는 소위 2차 BE를 추진하기로 하였다.

On the same day, the Defendant collected 185 CF carpet 185 FB clock 185 to commemorate the above BB, and proposed the second BE to get a bus 185 clock to get on board the bus and to be consolidated again under BC, and posted the status of the second BE preparation on June 26, 200 through the planning group and prior preparation work on the BF car page, and around 18:00 on July 9, 200, the Defendant made the two BE consolidation and joint contact clock with the citizens of the area 19:0-20:30-10:00 desire, the Defendant 20-22:00 AX, the AF 2:30-230-230-230-2300-2300-2300-10-10:20-130-10-140-20-10:00-20-10.

The Defendant, together with the Planning Group, has prepared the second BE, has formulated a plan to proceed in advance, has collected a total of KRW 5867,000 for participation costs, and has committed the following crimes during the second BE period: (i) General traffic obstruction:

The Defendant proposed the second BE as above, and set up a prior proceeding plan with the planning group, and held an assembly and demonstration participants in Busan from July 19, 201 to July 21:20 of the same day, from July 9, 201, to July 21:1, 201, in the form of “convenor between 7,000 participants in an assembly and demonstration and 7,000 participants in an assembly and demonstration at the Busan-dong Busan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-only.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the traffic by jointly using the land in common with the participants in the assembly or demonstration.

2) A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to an unreported assembly shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

However, the Defendant, without reporting to the chief of the competent police station on July 9, 201, with 7,000 participants from around 22:50 to around 15:30 of the following day, tried to open a participatory group flag, etc. and continuously proceed to a AX direction with relief, such as “BK-out and withdrawal of reorganization dismissal,” but the Defendant continued to hold a meeting and demonstration by using a numberless broadcast vehicle with a loudspeaker installed. B, I want to leave B, to be able to secure peace progress. B, to withdraw layoff, and to broadcast a program, such as “B-out and withdrawal of reorganization.”

Accordingly, the Defendant held an unreported assembly or demonstration.

3) A person who seeks to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to a non-compliance with an order of dispersion shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration, and shall, upon receipt of a request from the chief of the competent police station for voluntary dispersion of an unlawful assembly or demonstration, immediately dissolve the unlawful assembly or demonstration

On July 9, 201, the First Eastern BL of Seoul National Police Agency requested voluntary dispersion on July 23:05, and around 23:16, it ordered voluntary dispersion to the participants of the demonstration on three occasions from July 10, 201 to July 00:26, 201.

However, the participants of the demonstration including the Defendant did not immediately dissolve despite the dispersion order.

4) Injury caused by special obstruction of performance

The defendant planned and planned the second BE to meet and support the deaf BB by occupying BC, and the first BE success in the AY entry despite the police authority's resistance, the second BE also planned to attempt to enter the AY even if there is a police resistance, and if the participants of the demonstration interfere with the police, it could be sufficiently anticipated that the traffic will be obstructed by the demonstration.

Nevertheless, the Defendant did not report an assembly or demonstration as mentioned in the above 2) and, prior to the commencement of a demonstration in the Busan Station, took a representative speech with 7,00 participants of the demonstration, and instigated the participants of the demonstration to go to BC as at the time of the first BE regardless of the police’s resistance.

In addition, as a result, it is difficult to hold a demonstration any longer due to the police’s failure in front of the Busan Young-gu BHwon, the Defendant instigated the participants of the demonstration once again, referring to the sacrifice, unconstitutionality, and containers of the participants listed as broadcasting vehicles.

On July 9, 201, many participants, including BM, of 7,000 participants of the demonstration, refuse to comply with the order of continuous dispersion by the police in the presence of the police around the above BH on July 23:25, 201. Rather, the police officers, who continued to go beyond the unmanned stop line and directed the police at all times, and who prevented the police officers from going through the police for the purpose of drilling the final defense line of the police, are staying out of the police officers, such as "bruth d..............." Some of the police officers, they throw away from the police officers, and tried to wear a brush or a brud by the police officers, provoking the police officers, leading to the police officers, preventing the participants of the demonstration.

During that process, NaN, who belongs to the 52th Eastern Police Agency No. 52th Eastern Police Agency, was faced with a scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics, the left-hand scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopicscopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopic scopics, which require the participants of the demonstration.

Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with many participants of demonstration such as BM, interfered with legitimate performance of official duties by police officers BN, etc. for the maintenance of order and suppression of crime through multiple force, and suffered injury to three police officers.

(c) Interference with business affairs related to social gathering electronic companies;

1) Interference with business affairs on August 16, 2010

On August 16, 2010, the Defendant: (a) around 06:30 on August 16, 2010, at the time of Geumcheon-gu, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, 219-6, KazWndi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Chznnnndi”); (b) exercised power to prevent the removal of the above Mazndidididididi from entering the company, with other vegetables, including the defect B Q, to prevent it from entering the company. Accordingly, the Defendant, jointly with the above Q Q, obstructed the Defendant’s construction work.

2) Interference with business on October 15, 2010

On October 15, 2010, at the same place as above 11:00 on October 15, 2010, the Defendant continued to maintain the farming nature until the Defendant fell from the above czn&D, in collaboration with the above czn&D, in order to prevent the removal of the above czn&D from entering the company, together with other czers, such as B Q, to prevent it from entering the company. In order to prevent the removal of the above czn&D, the Defendant obstructed the construction work of the victim Czn&D, and continued to interfere with the construction work of the victim Czn&DD, jointly with the above b Q.

D. Performance of official duties related to the BT assembly

On August 17:24, 2010, the Defendant participated in the AZno BT meeting against layoff in front of the Cart building located in Seocho-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu 231, Seocho-gu. In this case, the police officers BV (the age of 44) affiliated with the Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul, received the report that the guard employed by the car company was assaulted by the employee of the union in relation to the above assembly, and tried to find out the staff who was identified by the guard who was damaged by the dispatch to the above site and to find out the circumstances.

However, the Defendant interfered with the legitimate performance of official duties of the police officer BV for criminal investigation, such as setting up rice tea, etc. by the above police officer.

2. The defendant B's criminal facts

On January 24, 2011, the Defendant was sentenced to three years of imprisonment with prison labor and four years of suspension of execution with prison labor for general traffic obstruction at the Seoul Central District Court, and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 27, 201.

(a)1BE-related criminal facts ( June 12, 201)

The Defendant provided the first BE Fund passbook to the above Party A, and recruited the participation fee of KRW 10,480,000 from the participants in the name of the Defendant.

1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and general traffic obstruction due to participation in night demonstration

No one shall hold any outdoor assembly or demonstration from 00:0 to 10:00. However, as described in the above 1. A. 1., the Defendant, as well as the participants of the demonstration, arrived at a bus from June 12, 201 to 01:25, from around 00:17 to around 01:25 in order to hold an assembly by entering a demonstration with the participants of the demonstration, and, as described in the foregoing 1. A. 1., the Defendant, as a matter of course, 5:0 pick-dong, Busan, Young-gu, U.S., entered the intersection, with 700 participants, has occupied the vehicle prior to the direction of the proceeding with about one kilometer, such as 'ceptioned and withdrawn', fladle cards, and candlelight.

Accordingly, the defendant participated in a demonstration prohibited at night, and interfered with traffic by making the participants of the demonstration pass on the land jointly with it.

2. Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence)

At around 01:25 on June 12, 201, when the Defendant refused to comply with the dispersion order before AY, the Defendant installed containers, etc. at all entrances, such as AX, and placed security guards, thereby making it difficult to enter AYBC, and subsequently, 500 participants of the demonstration were waiting at approximately 500 participants in the demonstration, and more than 30 members of AX branch staff in AY waiting at the front of the vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vege vege vege vege vege with the participants of the demonstration. By doing so, the Defendant intruded AY without permission, in collaboration with the participants of the demonstration, into the victim’s structures owned by the victim.

B. The criminal facts related to the second BE (from July 9, 201 to July 10, 201) the Defendant provided a passbook to the above BE Planning Party A for the second BE, and collected the total of KRW 5867,000 from the participants in the passbook in the name of the Defendant.

(i)general traffic obstruction;

From July 9, 201 to July 22:50, the Defendant, along with the participants in an assembly of 7,000 persons, started a plaza in Busan Station from July 9, 201 to July 21:2:50, as described in the above 1.b. (b) 1, from around July 21, 201, and took the front of the department store located in Nampo-dong, and took the 4.2 km section in front of the National Assembly located in Young-gu BH located in Young-gu via the Youngdo bridge. Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with traffic by way of making the participants pass through land in collaboration with the participants in an assembly and demonstration.

2) A person who seeks to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to a failure to comply with an order of dispersion shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration, and shall, upon receipt of a request from the chief of the competent police station for voluntary dispersion of an unlawful assembly or demonstration, immediately dissolve the unlawful assembly or demonstration

On July 9, 201, from around 22:50 to around 15:30 of the following day, the number of participants of demonstration including the Defendant, including the Defendant, tried to open the direction of AX and continuously proceed with relief such as "BK outage and withdrawal of reorganization dismissal" while moving along the lane prior to the road of BH located in the Young-gu Busan Metropolitan City BG from around July 22, 201 to around 15:30, but tried to open the direction of AX, such as "BK outage and withdrawal of reorganization dismissal". However, as the police was unable to go under the direction of AX, the Defendant continued to take out relief such as "bruds for violent police officers", and continued to go through BB by using a numberless broadcast vehicle with a loudspeaker installed. To guarantee peace progress. They conducted a non-reported demonstration, such as the withdrawal of layoff, and the removal of violent police force."

Accordingly, the first Eastern BL of the Seoul National Police Agency requested voluntary dispersion around July 9, 201 to the participants of the assembly who were gathered in front of the above BH members, and ordered voluntary dispersion on three occasions from July 10, 201 to July 26, 201 with the commencement of the voluntary dispersion order around 23:16. However, the participants of the demonstration including the Defendant did not dissolve without delay despite the dispersion order.

[2011Gohap814]

3. Defendant C’s criminal facts

(a) Criminal facts related to the first BE (from June 11, 2011 to June 6, 12): Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion);

At around 01:25 on June 12, 201, when the Defendant refused to comply with the dispersion order before AY, the Defendant installed containers, etc. at all entrances, such as AX, and placed security guards, thereby making it difficult to enter AYBC, and subsequently, 500 participants of the demonstration were waiting at approximately 500 participants in the demonstration, and more than 30 members of AX branch staff in AY waiting at the front of the vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vegetable vege vege vege vege vege with the participants of the demonstration. By doing so, the Defendant intruded AY without permission, in collaboration with the participants of the demonstration, into the victim’s structures owned by the victim.

B. Criminal facts related to the second BE (from July 9 to July 10, 201)

(i)general traffic obstruction;

From July 9, 201 to July 22:50, the Defendant, along with the participants in an assembly of 7,000 persons, started the square of Busan Station from July 21, 201 to July 21:2:50, as described in the above 1.b. 1, the Defendant started from the Busan Station, and took part in the section of approximately 4.2 kilometers in front of the BHwon located in Yong-gu, through the Young-do bridge. Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with traffic in a way that the participants in an assembly and demonstration jointly with the participants in an assembly and demonstration interfered with traffic by making them go through the land.

2) A person who seeks to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to a failure to comply with an order of dispersion shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration, and shall, upon receipt of a request from the chief of the competent police station for voluntary dispersion of an unlawful assembly or demonstration, immediately dissolve the unlawful assembly or demonstration

On July 9, 201, from around 22:50 to around 15:30 of the following day, the number of participants of the demonstration including the Defendant, including the Defendant, tried to open and continuously proceed to a AX direction with the movement of participating organizations, such as “BK out-up and removal of reorganization dismissal,” while moving along the lane prior to the road of BH located in the Young-gu Busan Metropolitan City BG from around July 22:50, 201. However, as the police was unable to go up by the police force, I want to go back to BB by continuously using a numberless broadcast vehicle with a loudspeaker installed, and tried to go up with BB by using a numberless loudspeaker. To guarantee peace progress. To be withdrawn from layoff, the government carried out a non-reported demonstration, such as taking out relief, such as “bK out-up and removal of reorganization.”

Accordingly, the first Eastern BL of the Seoul National Police Agency requested voluntary dispersion from July 9, 201 to the participants of the assembly who were gathered in front of the above BH members of the Seoul National Police Agency, and ordered voluntary dispersion from July 10, 201 to July 26, 201 at around 23:16. However, the participants of the demonstration including the Defendant did not immediately dissolve despite the dispersion order, and the Defendant was arrested on the ground that they refused to comply with the dispersion order at around 03:00 on July 10, 201.

C. On July 30, 201, from July 30, 201 to July 31, 201), a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration due to non-compliance with a dispersion order shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station at least 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration. Upon receipt of a voluntary dispersion order from the chief of the competent police station with respect to illegal assembly or demonstration, and upon receipt of a voluntary dispersion order, he/she must dissolve without delay. At the time of the voluntary dispersion order, 200 participants, who were gathered according to the public notice of the BE Planning group, including the Defendant, tried to hold an assembly under AYC, but the purport was not achieved due to the police’s failure, was gathered in front of the waterside park located in the Cheongdo-dong, Youngdong-gu, Cheongnamdong-gu, which was in the vicinity of the order of dispersion order, and hereinafter referred to as “on July 30, 2011>

Accordingly, on July 30, 201, the chief of the Yeongdeungpo-do Police Station requested the participants in assemblies, including the Defendant, to dissolve himself/herself on July 30, 201, and on July 31, 201, the police requested nine voluntary dispersion on July 31, 201, and the head of the police station ordered the voluntary dispersion on 17 occasions until July 31, 201, including the order of dispersion on July 31, 201. However, the participants, including the Defendant, did not immediately dissolve despite the dispersion order.

Summary of Evidence

[2011Gohap813]

1. The defendant A's partial statement

1. Each legal statement of the witness BX, BN, BY, BY, BY, CA, CB,CC, BW, CD, CE, and BV;

1. Copies of each protocol of suspect examination of CF, CG, CH, CI, Q, CJ, and CK;

1. Statement of the police concerning the CL;

1. A copy of each statement made to CM and CN;

1. A copy of each mail protocol, CM and CO statement to the CO;

1. Documents of each decision on provisional disposition and written adjudication;

1. Results of executing search and seizure warrants;

1. Each criminal complaint and additional criminal complaint;

1. Each investigation report (this e-mail investigation, victim C Q, e-mail investigation, evidence obstruction photo of construction); 1. Attachment of investigation report (Internet 'BF' site', BE-related preparations, attachment of report materials, BE solicitation methods, attachment of report materials, BE event planning, attachment of notice to BE-related AX branch, attachment of data related to the progress of the event, BE pressure screening and AX-related response, attachment of document to the account for participation in each region, second BE-related article attachment, attachment of BE-related article, attachment of photo photo, etc., attachment to BE B-B-related article attachment, attachment of suspect B-related article attachment, attachment to B-B-related article attachment, attachment to B-B-H list list from 1, B-2, and B-E attachment, attachment to Busan-H list list from 200 to 200, attachment of report on the results of the first list to B-B-H list list, attachment of evidence, etc., attachment to Defendant A-B-H list list list, etc.

1. 2011. 6. 15.자 2차 BE 참여 제안서, BE 타러가요(고양/파주), BE는 멈추지 않는다. (울산), BE 참가 안내(대전), BE 함께 타요(제안서), BE는 계속되고, 6-22 오후7시 2차 BE 깔깔깔 기획단-BA, 2011. 6. 20.자 2차 BE 현재 준비상황

1. Written estimate, related photographs, diagnostic documents, copies of a written designation of a defense industry enterprise, and photographs of documentary evidence;

1. Previouss before ruling: Criminal history records, data inquiries, etc., and results of the conet case search;

1. Each legal statement of the witness CS, CB, and B;

1. Documents of each decision on provisional disposition and written adjudication;

1. Each investigation report (in relation to attachment of debt photographs and summons, etc., third BE events, third BE events, third-party BE events, attachment of photographs related to the third BE events, attachment of a photographic document, AX defense industry designation document, and satellite photographs, etc. at the place where the participants in the first BE intrude into AX, and the place where the first BE exercise was held);

1. Photographs, such as a copy of business registration certificate, estimate and photograph, copy of photograph, copy of medical record area and medical fee receipt, copy of lock-out report, copy of public notice of lock-out, copy of warning, copy of order of evacuation, and written public notice;

Judgment on Defendant A’s argument

1. The defendant's assertion that he/she is not the organizer of an assembly or demonstration (related to 1. a. (a. 1) and 1.b. 2)

A. Defendant and defense counsel's assertion

1. The second BE Assembly and Demonstration is conducted by citizens' voluntary solidarity, so the defendant is not the organizer of the second BE Assembly and Demonstration.

B. Determination

The organizer refers to a person or organization holding an assembly or demonstration under his/her own responsibility under Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. The organizer of an assembly or demonstration which requires a prior report pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act refers to a person holding or leading an assembly or demonstration, or a person planning and organizing an assembly or demonstration and moving to its implementation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2821, Sept. 29, 201). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, i.e., the first proposer who held an assembly or demonstration under his/her own responsibility to hold an assembly or demonstration under his/her own responsibility, i.e., a person holding an assembly or demonstration under his/her own responsibility (see, e., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2821, Sept. 29, 201).

2. The assertion that there is no functional control over the act (related to the crime committed at the market on January 1, 200).

A. Defendant and defense counsel's assertion

The defendant does not know the fact that the police was injured by BM, etc., and such act was contingent, and there is no functional control over the defendant's act.

B. Determination

Article 30 of the Criminal Act is established by satisfying the subjective and objective requirements, namely, the implementation of a crime through functional control based on the intent of joint processing and the common intent. Even in cases where part of the conspiracys have not been carried out by directly sharing part of the elements of a crime, if it is acknowledged that there exists a functional control through essential contribution to the crime rather than a simple conspiracys, but rather a functional control through substantial contribution to the crime, the so-called crime as a co-principal cannot be exempted (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do1623, Dec. 22, 2006). In this case, in light of the means and manner of the crime, the number of persons participating in the crime and their inclinations, the time and place of the crime, the possibility of contact with others in the process of the crime, response to the intention to achieve the objective of the crime, etc., even if there was no possibility that the conspiracys would have been carried out by the conspiracys, or that there was no possibility that they would have been any other functional control over the crime.

In addition, in a case where two or more persons commit a crime, the conspiracy is not required under the law, but is only a combination of two or more persons to jointly process a crime and realize a crime. Thus, even if the two or more persons intend to commit a crime, the conspiracy relationship is established if the two or more persons agree to commit a crime, and even if they do not participate directly in the act of implementation, even if they do not participate directly in the act of implementation, they are held criminal liability as a co-principal, and if they intend to jointly commit a basic act, and if they intend to jointly act, they do not require the result to jointly act. The crime of causing obstruction of performance of special duties is established in the case of causing public officials' death by assault and intimidation against a public official who shows multiple power or carries with dangerous objects, and it is sufficient to expect the result (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 200Do3485, Apr. 12, 200; 200Do6816, Jun. 28, 2008).

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by the court, i.e., (i) BB’s main purpose of the second BE assembly under the CYAE assembly as the first BE assembly; (ii) large-scale participants at the time of the first BE assembly appear to enter the AY assembly, which is a national security facility, with a view to causing violence and violence; and (ii) the second BE assembly also took place more than 10 times the size of participants at the time of the first BE assembly, and more than 7,000 persons, the Defendant could have been sufficiently aware of the circumstances; and (iii) the Defendant, as the organizer of the assembly, was not aware of the fact-finding and the police force’s participation in the demonstration; and (iii) the Defendant’s assertion that there was no possibility that part of the Defendant’s participation in the demonstration, such as the use of violence and violence, could have been avoided by the police force’s participation in the demonstration, and thus, the Defendant’s participation in the demonstration could not be found to the effect that the Defendant’s participation in the demonstration could be avoided.

3. The assertion that he did not commit an act of obstructing the performance of official duties (related to the crime of 1. D. on the market).

A. Defendant and defense counsel's assertion

The defendant unilaterally resisted that the police tried to arrest the participant of the demonstration, but did not play a bridge for the police.

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the detailed statements in BV’s investigative agencies and courts, and images of photographs containing the Defendant and BV figures at the time of the instant case, the fact that the Defendant obstructed the investigation of BV by exercising the force of force, such as resisting the police’s attitude, not putting the body of BV, etc. Accordingly, the Defendant and the defense counsel’s above assertion is rejected. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1. The assertion that he/she failed to hear the order to dissolve (the crime committed at the time of sale; 3.c. related thereto);

A. Defendant and defense counsel's assertion

The defendant, at the place of assembly, arrived beyond his fixed time, and was unable to hear the dispersion order.

B. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① the dispersion order was issued several times from the self-determination to the new wall time, ② the distance between the vehicle and the participants in the assembly was not far away from 100 meters, ③ the Defendant was broadcast through a loudspeaker, etc., it is determined that the police was ordered to dissolve. Accordingly, the above assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel is not accepted.

Judgment on Defendants’ assertion

1. The assertion that there has been no traffic obstruction and that it does not go against social norms (related to 1. A. 1), 1.b. 1, 2. A. 1, 2.b. 1, 2. 1) and 3. b. 1)

A. The defendants and defense counsel's assertion

The ○○ Defendant A, B: the 1, 2, and 2E demonstration was conducted under the police's defense, and it did not directly or intentionally occupy the front lane of the road, and made the front passage of the road unfolded. Even if it should guarantee the freedom of assembly, the Defendant's act is an act that does not go against social rules.

○ Defendant C: The second BE demonstration did not interfere with the flow of traffic, and it does not constitute a general traffic obstruction as long as the said demonstration is a legitimate demonstration.

B. Determination

In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted by the court and examined by the court, i.e., (i) the police go together with the participants of the demonstration, but it seems that the act of participating in the demonstration constitutes a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and it seems that the act of participating in the demonstration can only be permitted for the purpose of preventing accidents caused by the demonstration, (ii) the act of participating in the demonstration lacks legality as an unreported demonstration, (iii) the participants of the demonstration committed an act of lacking 700 persons (first) or 7,000 persons (second). (iv) the fact that the participants of the demonstration committed the act of participating in the demonstration, due to the fact that the vehicles located along the roads occupied by the participants, were unable to communicate traffic for a considerable period of time, or significantly difficult to communicate, and that the act of participating in the demonstration constitutes a crime of interference with the general traffic under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, and thus, it cannot be seen as a violation of the freedom of assembly and demonstration under Article 20 of the Criminal Act.

A. The defendants and defense counsel's assertion

Defendant A did not enter the wall above AY’s fence, and Defendant B entered AY to deliver CT to BY, and did not have any intention of entering the house, and Defendant C entered the door without any restraint.

B. Determination

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① AX was prevented from entering AY except for some limited persons upon taking a lock-out measure as of February 14, 201; ② AX posted a notice, warning, and evacuation order to the effect that it cannot enter AY without permission of the company at the time; ② AY was controlled from entering AY due to security services; ③ the 3 Defendants entered AY is intended to attract BB in the occupied agricultural household in AYC in response to the layoff of AX; ③ the 4 Defendants entered the AYAY without any restraint; and the 1-2-meter narrow space made by the 4 Defendants entering AY is contrary to the victim’s intent; and the Defendants also recognized that the Defendants entered AY against the victim’s intent. Therefore, the above Defendants and the defense counsel’s assertion is not accepted.

3. The assertion that there was no legitimate order of dissolution [related to the crime committed at the market on January 3, 200, February 2, 200, March 2, 200].

A. The defendants and defense counsel's assertion

Defendant A and B: The reason for dissolution does not coincide with the reasons for dissolution stated in the facts charged at the time of the issuance of the dispersion order, and the outdoor assembly and demonstration before and after sunset hours are not subject to Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which is prohibited by the decision of the Constitutional Court, and thus, the dispersion order is unfair on the ground that the assembly and demonstration was not reported. Even if the aforementioned demonstration violates the statutes, it does not directly cause any direct danger to the legal interests of others or public peace and order. Therefore, the dispersion order cannot be ordered.

○ Defendant C: It shall not be punished for failing to hear the dispersion order, and failing to comply with the dispersion order against the law assembly.

B. Determination

Even if Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not provide for separate dispersion requirements for an outdoor assembly or demonstration subject to an order of dispersion, the said outdoor assembly or demonstration may be ordered to be dissolved pursuant to the said provision only where a direct danger to the legal interests of others or public peace and order is obviously caused by such outdoor assembly or demonstration, and only where an order of dispersion meeting such requirements is not complied with, it shall be deemed that Article 24 subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act can be punished (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do6388, Apr. 19, 2012).

The following facts revealed through the evidence adopted by the court of this case, namely, ① the second BE demonstration was conducted from July 9, 201 to 15:30 on the following day, ② the demonstration after the departure of the Busan Station was not reported, ③ the BL demanded voluntary dispersion by giving notice of the non-reported demonstration on July 9, 201, ④ the act of participating in the demonstration after the departure of the Busan Station constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic, ④ the form of the demonstration after the departure of the Busan Station, ③ the degree of interference with traffic, ③ the number of times of the dispersion order and the degree of the order of dispersion, ③ the Defendants’ legal interests and interests and interests after the dispersion order were not clearly accepted. Accordingly, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants’ legal interests and interests were clearly infringed or the order of dispersion after the departure of the Busan Station.

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant A: Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the main sentence of Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 2(2) and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (the point of joint residence intrusion), Articles 144(2), 14(1), 136(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 22(2), and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (the point of holding a non-reported assembly), Articles 24 subparag. 5 and 20(2) and 30 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 314(1)1 of the Criminal Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 314(1) and (30) of the Criminal Act (the point of obstructing the performance of official duties under Article 136(1) of the Criminal Act) of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant B: Article 23 subparag. 3 and the main sentence of Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 24 subparag. 5 and Article 20(2) and 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (in response to the non-compliance with the order of dissolution)

○ Defendant C: Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (joint residence intrusion), Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act (general traffic obstruction), Articles 24 subparag. 5 and 20(2) and 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act

1. Commercial competition;

○ Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment stipulated for the crime of causing bodily injury to a special obstruction of performance of official duties against BN, BO, and BP, and the punishment for the crime of causing bodily injury to a special obstruction of official duties against BN with the largest criminal situation)

1. Selection of punishment;

○ Defendant A: Selection of each imprisonment

○ Defendant B and C: each fine for negligence

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant B: The latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crimes of each of the defendants' judgment and the general traffic obstruction, etc. which become final and conclusive)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Defendant A: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (aggravating concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated in the crime of injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties, which is the largest punishment)

○ Defendant B: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (the severe penalty and penalty)

○ Defendant C: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act (Aggravation of concurrent crimes with punishment stipulated by the most severe general traffic obstruction)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

○ Defendant A: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following consideration is given to the favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Defendant B and C: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Order of provisional payment;

○ Defendant B and C: Reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

【Scope of Penalty Surcharge】

- Defendant A: Imprisonment of one year and six months to twenty-two years;

- Defendant B and C: Each fine of KRW 50,000 from KRW 22,50,000 to KRW 22,50,000 (whether to apply the sentencing guidelines) Defendant B and C are selected by each fine, and the sentencing guidelines are not applicable.

[Determination of Punishment] Crimes of Injury by Special Obstruction of Official Duties: Crimes of Obstruction of Official Duties, Special Obstruction of Official Duties, Type 1 (Bodily Injury by Special Obstruction of Official Duties): Crimes of Obstruction of Official Duties, Crimes of Obstruction of Official Duties, Category 1 (Obstruction of

【Scope of Recommendation】

- Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties: Imprisonment with prison labor for two years to four years (basic areas);

- Crimes of obstruction of performance of official duties: Imprisonment of six months to one year and four months (basic area);

[Scope of the revised recommended sentence] Imprisonment for not less than two years [limited to the lowest limit of the above recommended sentence] for two years or more [the violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration without the sentencing guidelines, each general traffic obstruction, each general traffic obstruction, each violation of the Punishment of Violence, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion), and each obstruction of business];

【Determination of Sentence】

Defendant A: Each of the crimes of this case with two years imprisonment committed an act of interference with traffic, interference with structure, and failure to comply with a dispersion order while hosting a night demonstration or an assembly or demonstration prohibited by the Defendant, and obstructing police officers’ performance of their official duties and inflicting injury on them in the course of such act for the purpose of maintaining order by multiple force. Although each of the crimes of this case notified that the layoff of AX is unfair and that each of the crimes of this case is for the inside of BB in high agricultural and industrial nature, such an act cannot be justified by going beyond the limit of freedom of assembly and expression.

Even if the purpose of the crime is justified, if the means and method leading to it violates the law and the principles, such act would damage the value of democracy, and therefore, it is necessary to judge such behavior in a simple manner even above democracy protection. In addition, in full view of the fact that each of the crimes in this case committed a lot of damages to citizens living around the place of demonstration, and the traffic communication has been significantly difficult for a considerable period of time, and in particular, the crime of injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties is a crime that seriously undermines social security and order by nullifying the legitimate public power by abusing the public authority, a sentence of imprisonment with prison labor is inevitable for the defendant.

However, considering the fact that the defendant did not directly exercise violence against police officers, that the defendant has no criminal record of imprisonment without prison labor or heavier punishment, that part of the victims does not want the punishment of the defendant, and the age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of all the sentencing conditions shown in the arguments of this case.

Defendant B: Each of the crimes in the instant case involving KRW 3,00,000 is that the Defendant participated in the night demonstration prohibited by the Defendant and engaged in traffic obstruction, intrusion on a structure, and non-compliance with a dispersion order. Even if the purpose is justifiable, such act cannot be justified by going beyond the bounds of the freedom of assembly and expression. Each of the crimes in the instant case requires consideration in discussing the Defendant’s responsibility even if citizens living around the demonstration place suffered a large number of damages due to each of the crimes in the instant case.

However, the defendant is merely a simple participant of the assembly or demonstration of this case, it seems that violence is not exercised during the process of demonstration, and other factors such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after crime are considered in the pleading of this case, and the punishment as ordered shall be determined by taking into account all the factors of sentencing

- Defendant C: Fines 5,000,000

Each of the crimes of this case is that the defendant committed an act of invasion on a structure, traffic obstruction, and non-compliance with a dispersion order. Even if the purpose of each of the crimes of this case is justifiable, if the means and method leading up to it are in violation of the law and principles, such act would damage the value of democracy, and thus, it is necessary to make a simple inquiry about such behavior for the protection of democracy. The fact that the citizens living around the place of demonstration suffered a lot of damage due to each of the crimes of this case that each of the crimes of this case committed in this case,

However, the defendant's participation in each of the crimes in this case seems not to be severe, and it seems that violence has not been exercised during the demonstration process, and other factors such as the defendant's age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime are considered, the punishment as ordered shall be determined in consideration of all the conditions of sentencing specified in the arguments in this case.

The acquittal portion

1. Of the facts charged against Defendant A, the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the holding of each non-reported assembly as of July 30, 201, July 31, 2011, August 27, 201, October 8, 201, and October 9, 201, among the facts charged against Defendant A; the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the holding of each non-reported assembly as of August 28, 201, and the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the holding of the night demonstration as of August 28, 201, and each general traffic obstruction as of October 8, 201.

A. Summary of each of the facts charged

1) Criminal facts related to the third BE (from July 30, 201 to July 31, 201)

On July 13, 2011, the Planning Body, including the Defendant, established detailed matters through the "Council of Planning for Determination of the third BE" at the Seoul AZ Office, and announced on July 14, 201, the "BE proposal" to the public, "B. Busan, 2.10 square, 2.0 square, 2.0 candlelights, 2.0 candlelights, 2.0 candlelights before BC, 3:00 square, 2:00 square, 3:00 square, 2:00 square, 3:0 square, and 3:0 square, 3:0,000 square, 2:00,000, 3:00,000, and 3:0,000,000, and 3:0,000,000, and 3:0,000,000,000,00,000,00.

As above, the defendant, with the aim of the Planning Group, shall proceed with the assembly and demonstration, and if to prevent it, shall hold an assembly at an appropriate place in the vicinity, and the police shall hold an assembly before the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency, with a sign indicating that the police avoided BE and removed BB. The participation fee shall be collected by participating groups, and the third activity shall be prepared in collusion to collect it by participating groups, and the third activity shall be committed as follows on the date of the third activity:

A) A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration due to an unreported assembly (AY) shall submit to the chief of the competent police station a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. of the assembly or demonstration 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

However, 2,200 people who participated in the third BE tried to hold a meeting under AYBC according to the aforementioned prior plan of the Defendant and Planning Group, but they did not achieve the purpose due to the police's blocking, and the participants gathered on the front road of the riversided in the Young-gu, Young-gu, Cheongdong-gu, the AY Eastdong. The participants 2,200 people occupied the front road of the road from July 30, 201 to 08:50 on the following day, and continued to hold a non-reported assembly under the name of the "festest Epic culture", such as the creation of a disaster, and the winding, etc. This led to the Defendant in collusion with the Planning Group to hold a non-reported assembly in the above way.

B) A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (in the vicinity of the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency) due to the event of an assembly without filing a report shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration. At around 11:55 on July 31, 201, 15, the 1,500 participants of the demonstration, pursuant to the aforementioned prior plan of the Defendant and the Planning Group, carried out an unreported assembly in the manner of “a prior preparation for BE to move the place prior to the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency located in the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency and stop BE by moving the place prior to the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency.”

As a result, the Defendant conspired with the Planning Group to hold an unreported assembly in the above manner.

2) Criminal facts related to the fourth BE (from August 27, 201 to August 28, 201)

피고인은 기획단과 협의를 거쳐 2011. 8. 8. 14:00경 BA 서울 사무실에서 '정리해고 비정규직 없는 세상을 위한 4차 BE 대국민 제안 기자회견'을 개최하였고, 기획단과 사전 협의를 거쳐 2011. 8. 23. 기획단 이름으로 'BF' 카페에 4차 BE 방향과 계획에 대하여 글을 올리면서 '4차 BE는 2011. 8. 27. 18:00경 서울 광화문 네거리에서 집회를 열고, 2011. 8. 28. 10:00~12:00 청와대 앞산 인왕산에서 "정리해고를 없애고, 비정규직을 없애라."는 우리의 요구를 소리 높여 외칠 것이며, 14:00경 AX 서울 본사 앞에서 거침없이 하이킥을 날리는 집회를 하겠다'는 구체적인 계획을 발표하였으며, 8. 25.에는 피고인이 직접 'BF' 카페 'BJ'란에 "4차 BE 준비도 거의 다 마쳐졌다. 수고하는 사람들의 핼쑥한 얼굴들을 보며 마음이 짠하다. 대부분 십수일씩 잠을 설친 사람들이다."라는 등의 내용으로 BE 참가를 독려하였다.

As above, the Defendant conspired to proceed with an assembly and demonstration in the Planning Group and Seoul Mageomun, etc., and, if necessary for demonstration, occupy the road and interfere with traffic by flying along the road, and received from the participants in the fourth BE an amount of KRW 5,755,00 from the participants in the fourth BE and committed the following crimes on the fourth BE day.

A) A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the holding of the unreported assembly shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

On August 27, 2011, from August 19:00 to 21:25 of the same day, the 3,500 participants in the 4th BE conference continued to hold an assembly in collusion with the planning team by leaving the public forum located in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, for a labor organization flag, such as "resting the flag of the labor organization" and holding the assembly. Accordingly, the Defendant in collusion with the planning group and held the non-reported assembly in the above manner.

B) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and general traffic obstruction due to the hosting of night demonstration

No person shall hold any outdoor assembly or demonstration from 00:00 to 0:00 sunrise.

피고인과 전화 통화를 마친 탤런트 CU은 위와 같은 일시, 장소에서 시위 참가자들에게, "우리의 힘을 보여주자. 도로로 나가자."라고 선동하였다. 이에 시위 참가자들 3,500여명은 피고인 및 기획단의 사전 계획에 따라 2011. 8. 28. 00:00부터 00:20 경까지 집회신고 장소인 독립문 공원으로 이동하기 위해 시위참가자 1,000여명은 '플라자 호텔 뒷길에서 롯데백화점, 한은로터리, 남대문, 서울역을 지나 서대문 방면으로 진행방향 전 차로를 점거하여 가두행진하고, 시위참가자 1,500명은 같은 시간 한은로터리, 상공회의소, 염천교를 지나 서대문 방면 진행방향 전 차로를 점거하여 가두 행진하였다.

In addition, the participants of the divided demonstration as above moved together in front of the National Police Agency, "CV detention D.", and "CV detention D.", and opened a lane prior to the front of the independent park, leading up to a total of 4.4 kilometers by leaving the road in front of the independent park. Accordingly, the Defendant, in collusion with the Planning Body, participated in an outdoor demonstration prohibited at night, and interfered with traffic in such a way as to distort the land.

3) 5 BE-related criminal facts (from October 8, 201 to October 10.9)

At around September 15, 201, 13:00, the Defendant, following prior consultation with the Planning Group, held the 5th BE Declaration Council at the Seoul Office of Seoul, and announced the direction of the 5th BE for the 5th BE for the 5th Non-regular Award.

In addition, the Defendant prepared the 5th BE with the Planning Group, prepared a progress plan in advance, and announced the 5th BE schedule and plan on October 5, 201 as the title "fiveth BE schedule and plan" in the 5th BF carpet on October 5, 201, and specifically announced the 5th BE implementation plan as follows: "The departure from each of the whole country on August 8, 10, 18:00, Busan (SPP) arrival at Busan (SP) at around 21:00, the second start (SPP) at around 22:00, the second start (SP) at around BC at around 23:00, the arrival of BC at around 23:00, the AbC at around 07:0, the AbE at around 08:0, the movement at around 00, and the 10:0 each departure at around 100.0."

As above, the defendant, as the goal of BC, has been an assembly and demonstration, but if necessary, has an assembly at an appropriate place, such as Southern-dong, etc., and has conspired to occupy roads in the process to hold or proceed with the assembly and demonstration.

A) The participants in the fifth BE of the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (BI roads in front of the Assembly and Demonstration Act) due to the holding of the unreported assembly attempted to gather to AY around 18:00 on October 8, 201 and move to BY. However, in order to prevent illegal assembly and violence in advance, as the police block the police, the police moved to BI of Busan mid-gu according to the prior plan of the Defendant and Planning Group. A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit to the chief of the competent police station a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. of the outdoor assembly or demonstration 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

However, around 20:40 on October 20, 201, 200 participants of the demonstration continued to hold the assembly by up to 21:40 on the same day, including, but not limited to, "the withdrawal of organization" and "B" using broadcasting equipment, etc. in accordance with the prior plan of the Defendant and Planning Group, in accordance with the prior plan of the Defendant and Planning Group.

As a result, the Defendant conspired with the Planning Group to hold an unreported assembly in the above manner.

B) At around 22:46 on the same day, more than 2,00 participants of the general traffic obstruction demonstration continued to conduct the demonstration by up to 24:00 on the same day after moving the place from the above assembly site to the eb.g., the ebbbban-dong located in the middle-gu Busan Metropolitan City, which was immediately prior to the entry into the Young River. At the above place, more than 2,00 participants were in response to the repeated dispersion order given by the head of the Busan Central Police Station in accordance with the prior plan of the Defendant and Planning Group, and moving the eight-lane lanes into the organization and moving the eight-lane road on the same day.

As a result, the defendant interfered with traffic in collusion with the Planning Group by causing it to go on by land.

C) A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration due to an unreported assembly shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station at least 48 hours prior to the date of the outdoor assembly or demonstration. The number of participants of the assembly 2,00 has become difficult to enter the territory due to the police’s blocking, following the prior plan of the Defendant and Planning Body and the CW of the Planning Body’s official announcement. On October 9, 2010, on the same day, the Defendant continued the outdoor assembly without reporting by not later than 08:20 on the same day. Accordingly, the Defendant organized the unreported assembly in collusion with the Planning Body in a manner as above.

D) A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration due to the holding of a unreported assembly shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. of the assembly or demonstration to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration. The 800 participants were gathered at around 10:15 on October 9, 201 in accordance with the prior plan of the Defendant and the Planning Body for the conclusion of the assembly. The participants of the demonstration continued to hold an assembly by combining with the Planning Body on the following methods: (a) the participants of the demonstration committed an outdoor assembly or demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter referred to as “the withdrawal of the assembly or demonstration”); and (b) the participants of the demonstration committed an unreported assembly, such as raising a relief, such as the “cX” (referring to BC) by impairing the flag of the labor organization; and (c) the Defendant, in collusion with the Planning Body, led to the failure to hold the assembly by the aforementioned means.

B. Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

The defendant was not the organizer of the above assembly or demonstration, but did not participate in the above assembly or demonstration.

The following circumstances revealed in the process of the court's hearing, namely, ① the first and second BE assembly and demonstration appears to have been aimed at supporting BB that is fright in accordance with AX and providing information about the situation of layoffs of AX, whereas the third through fifth BE assembly and demonstration seems to have more emphasis on improving unreasonable social structure, such as overall issues related to treatment of domestic workers and repris, and ② the person in charge of the third through fifth BE assembly and demonstration is other than the defendant (the participation of the second to the second assembly and demonstration is indicated as the person in charge of the defendant, while the third and fourth BE assembly and demonstration is described as C in the case of the third and fourth assembly and demonstration, and the name of the person in charge of the media promotion for the fifth assembly and demonstration is changed to the name of the third and the media promotion department is stated as CY), and the defendant appears not to have been able to participate in the third assembly and demonstration, but in the process of the third assembly or demonstration, the third or third assembly or demonstration, and there is no other organization or demonstration.

D. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the facts charged in this part constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, the defendant shall be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary thereof shall be publicly announced under Article 58(2)

2. Of the facts charged against Defendant A and B, the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order on June 12, 2011

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

No one shall hold any outdoor assembly or demonstration from 00 to 00 days before sunrise, and anyone who intends to hold any outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours before such outdoor assembly or demonstration, and shall, upon receiving a request from the chief of the competent police station for voluntary dispersion of any unlawful assembly or demonstration, dissolve it without delay when he/she is ordered to voluntarily dissolve it.

CZ belonging to the same police station, which was delegated by the head of Busan City/Do police station, at around 00:40 on December 6, 201, at the same place as indicated in the facts constituting a crime 1. A. 1) and requested voluntary dispersion on the ground that it is a night demonstration and a non-reported demonstration, for which the aforementioned active demonstration is prohibited, and from that time until 02:08, the request for voluntary dispersion and the order for voluntary dispersion was issued 13 times in total.

However, the participants of the demonstration including the Defendants did not immediately dissolve despite the dispersion order.

B. Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

There was no dispersion order.

C. Determination

The following circumstances revealed in the trial process of this court: ① A broadcast that existed at the time of crime (from 00:40 on June 12, 201 to 02:08) shall not be more than 13 times, and the broadcast content shall be known to the Youngdo Police Station. The number of participants at the assembly and several minutes are illegal assembly and demonstration that have not been reported at night; ② The CZ in charge of the above broadcast at the time shall be free dissolution and return home to the country, and ② The CZ in this court shall have separate order and dispersion order. It is difficult to take measures at the time of dispersion. The above eight broadcast content at the time of crime is a voluntary dispersion request. The broadcast content at the time of the investigation report is no more than 13 times, and its broadcast content shall be deemed as legitimate evidence for the assembly and demonstration that has not been reported at the time of the assembly and order at 20:10 on June 12, 201, and there is no other reason to view it as a violation of the law of the Constitutional Court’s unconstitutional order or 20:10.

D. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the Defendants should be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary thereof should be publicly announced under Article 58(2)

3. Of the facts charged against Defendant C, the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the hosting of the night demonstration as of June 12, 201, the general traffic obstruction as of June 12, 201, and the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the hosting of each non-reported assembly as of July 30, 201 and July 31, 201

A. Summary of each of the facts charged

1) The facts constituting the first BE-related criminal facts (from June 11 to June 12, 201): From 00 to 12: 10, the Defendant Company A proposed the so-called “BE” to the effect that 20:0,000,000,000 from 0,000 to 3:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 1:3:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 1:0:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000: 1:0:0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000:0,000,000,00,000,000:

In addition, on June 10, 2011, the defendant notified that "6/11 BE last inspection meeting is being held at the time of November 15, 201," "BE-related publicity and underwater solidarity," "the head of the public relations team of the Non-regular Labor Relations Council and the head of the strike support team (DB) are working in high military," "BE Seoul," and posted a statement to inform him of the details of the entire BE implementation plan, such as that published by the defendant A.

For the above reasons, the defendant proposed, prepared, and announced the first BE in collusion with the defendant A and other BE Planning Group, and established and announced a progress plan, and committed the following crimes.

No one shall hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration from 00:0 to 10:00. However, from June 12, 201 to June 25, 2011, the number of 700 participants who are the mother participants from around 00:17 to around 01:25 of the following day, from around 00:17 to around 01:5 of the Dobong-gu in Busan, the 5-dong-dong 1:00 to around the direction of progress, such as 'click and withdrawal', 'click and candlelights' and 1 kilometer up to the AY door.

As a result, the defendant conspired with the Planning Group to hold a demonstration prohibited at night, and interfered with traffic by causing the passage to the land.

2) Criminal facts related to the third BE (from July 30, 201 to July 31, 201)

On July 13, 2011, the Planning Body, including the Defendant, established the details of the 3 BE meeting at the Seoul AZ office through the 3rd session of the Planning Body for the determination of the details of the BE, announced on July 14, 201 through the 30th session of the Seoul Z office, and announced on July 30, 201 through the 3rd session of the National Assembly, the 3rd session of the BE meeting was opened at the 0th session of the 20th candlelight, the 2th session was not set up before BC, and the 3rd session was opened at the 0th session of the Seoul 20th session, the 3rd session of the 20th session, and the 3rd session of the 3rd session of the Police Council was opened at the 0th session of the 3rd session of the Seoul 20th 20th 20th 27th 201.

In addition, the defendant posted a letter "DD" on July 18, 201, 'BF' 'BF' 'D', and '3 BE through interview' means plans to proceed in a way different from the second one which has been symbolized with a strong and side wall, 'the participants are preparing a program so that they can show their own own initiative and expertise to the maximum extent possible, and '3BE through an interview with DH' means 'the 'the 3rd BE will download its capital'.

For the above reasons, the defendant proposed, prepared, and announced the third BE in collusion with the defendant A and other BE Planning Group, and established and announced a progress plan, and committed the following crimes.

A) A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration due to an unreported assembly (AY) shall submit to the chief of the competent police station a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. of the assembly or demonstration 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

However, according to the public notice of BE Planning Group including the Defendant, Defendant A, etc., the number of 2,200 participants who were gathered were trying to hold an assembly under AYBC, but it was not achieved due to the police's blocking, and it was gathered in front of the waterside park located in the Cheongdong-gu, Youngdong-gu, Youngdong-gu, the AYdong-gu, and it was held from July 30, 201 to 08:50 on the following day by proving the flag of labor organization, and by occupying the road, it was in good efforcing, raising relief, such as "organization and withdrawal, etc.", and the Defendant also participated in the above assembly. Accordingly, the Defendant participated in the assembly by gathering participants and participating in the assembly by participating in the assembly.

B) A person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (in the vicinity of the Busan Metropolitan Police Agency) due to an unreported assembly shall submit a report stating the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration.

At around 11:55 on July 31, 201, 200 participants 1,50, according to the aforementioned prior plan of the Defendant and Planning Group, the participants 1,500 opened a non-reported assembly in the manner of "any khicket," stating the phrase "boms prepared in advance to indicate a port against the Busan Provincial Police Agency located in the Busan Provincial Police Agency, which prevents BE according to the Defendant's society, was isolated." Accordingly, the Defendant organized a non-reported assembly in collusion with the Planning Body in a manner of gathering participants and viewing the society at the meeting.

B. Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion

The Defendant was not the organizer of the above assembly or demonstration, but did not participate in the first BE assembly or demonstration. The following circumstances revealed in the process of the hearing of this court. In other words, the Defendant’s duty is related to the rights and interests of non-regular workers: (i) the Defendant presented the direction of the purpose of the assembly or demonstration; (ii) there was no statement or material supporting the Defendant’s establishment and implementation of the plan on the means and method; (iii) there was a telephone conversation with the Defendant who belongs to BE Planning Group during the process of the assembly or demonstration, and asked the Defendant of the countermeasures against the police’s exercise of public authority; (iv) the main monetary content is the contact at the time of the arrival of the assembly or demonstration site; and (iii) there was no circumstance that the Defendant exercised on-site control power by the Defendant’s response to the countermeasures at the scene; and (iii) the Defendant did not appear to have led the assembly or demonstration in the process of carrying out the work at the Kaf page, and there was no evidence or evidence submitted by the prosecutor.

D. Conclusion

Thus, since each of the facts charged in this part constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, the defendant shall be acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary thereof shall be publicly announced under Article 58(2)

4. The charges against Defendant C causing special obstruction of performance of official duties

A. Summary of this part of the facts charged

The Defendant, Defendant, and Defendant, and other Defendants A, recruited participants on the premise that they would proceed to an assembly to support BB by running up to AY and success in AY entry at the first BE, and thus, the participants anticipated that the participants would engage in an action to stop the police if the progress of the participants in the second BE would be avoided by the police. Furthermore, Defendant A, as seen above, made a representative prior to the commencement of the progress in the Busan Station, followed the participants of the demonstration, and opened a candlelight of 1 to 2. We begin with a candlelight of the demonstration. BC with BB leader as a member of the BB guidance committee. On the other hand, the participants of the demonstration should continue to go up to BC as at the time of the first BE regardless of the police’s decline, and the participants of the demonstration should have led to any further sacrifice of the participants in the demonstration by the police without any further sacrifice of the police force in the front of the Busan Yongdo, and as a result, it again became difficult for the participants of the demonstration and democracy.

On July 9, 201, many participants including BM among 7,000 participants of the demonstration were refused to comply with the order of continuous dispersion by the police before the police around the above BH on July 23:25, 201. Rather, the police officers were forced to stop the demonstration beyond the unmanned stop line and to stop the movement, and the police who prevented the police from carrying out the police for the purpose of drilling the final defense line of the police. While carrying out relief, the police officers were faced with the inside of the police officers by throwing ticks in some possession or by provoking, and some of the police officers tried to wear a bru that is pushed or pushed by the police officers to prevent the participants of the demonstration.

During that process, Police BN, who belongs to the 52th East Zone 52th East Zone, was faced with an influence of 10ssss in the left-hand ss in the face-hand ss in need of medical treatment for about 6 weeks by being towed by the participants of the demonstration, and BN, who belongs to the 2nd East Zone 2nd East Zone, was threatened by the participants of the demonstration, with a threat that "I wish to be killed or to be killed unless you want to do so," the participants of the demonstration, who were placed in the 15th East Zone 5th East Zone 5th East Zone, suffered from an influs influs in the number of treatment days due to the flus influs in the military, and the bP belonging to the 53th East Zone 53th East Zone 10s in the Seoul Special Metropolitan Police Agency, caused the decline's s influsium and the number of days of medical treatment.

As a result, in collusion with many participants of demonstration such as Defendant A and BM, the Defendant interfered with legitimate performance of official duties by police officers BN, etc. for the maintenance of order and suppression of crime through multiple force, and suffered injury to three police officers in the process.

B. The defendant and defense counsel's assertion

There was no conspiracy by the defendant.

C. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances revealed in the trial process of this court: (a) the Defendant appears not to hold the above assembly or demonstration; (b) the Defendant appears not to have held the above assembly or demonstration during the demonstration process; and (c) the Defendant’s role in the demonstration; (d) the background leading up to the Defendant’s participation; and (e) the process of deterioration in the form of violence, etc., the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone cannot be deemed to have participated in the crime of injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties by functional control over the participants of the demonstration who committed violence by the Defendant through the exercise of influence or instigates

D. Conclusion

Thus, this part of the facts charged constitutes a case where there is no proof of a crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the summary thereof is publicly announced under Article 58(2) of

Public Prosecution Rejection Parts

1. The summary of this part of the facts charged (the second BE)

No person shall conduct any demonstration before sunrise or after sunset.

However, Defendant A proposed the second BE, and Defendant C continued to hold an assembly in the form of “convenor between 7,000 participants and 7,000 participants in the assembly from July 9, 201 to 21:20 on the same day in order to hold an assembly within AY with Defendant A’s proposal and public notice of BE Planning group,” and Defendant C continued to hold an assembly in the form of “convenor between 7,000 participants in the assembly and 7,000 participants in the assembly at the Busan East-dong Busan-dong Busan-dong from July 9, 201 to 21:20, from 21:20 to 22:50, the above Busan-dong Busan-dong Busan-dong Busan-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong.

Accordingly, the defendant A and the defendant C participated in the prohibited night demonstration in collusion with the planning group, and the defendant B participated in the prohibited night demonstration.

2. Determination

Since the prosecutor revoked the prosecution against the Defendants through the modification of the indictment on August 26, 2014, which was after the prosecution of this case, the prosecutor dismissed the prosecution under Article 328(1)1 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

The new judge, new judge and new judge

Judge To call

Judges Il-il