beta
Text
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. On December 3, 2011, Defendant 1), with regard to the obstruction of general traffic by December 3, 2011, the Defendant was present at the political debate held by L political parties at the time of the instant case, and he was seated in front of the Young Library from 18:00 to 18:38 on the day, and the traffic had already been considerably controlled.
In light of the form of assembly at the time, the possible degree of vehicle traffic flow, and the protected legal interest in traffic obstruction, etc., the assembly of this case or the act of the defendant did not make the vehicle traffic completely impossible due to the assembly of this case or the act of the defendant, and there was no room to endanger the life and body of the vehicle driver or the passenger on board, etc. In addition, it did not cause the traffic obstruction stipulated by the general traffic obstruction. In particular, the defendant was merely a participant at the assembly debate who was not a person holding the assembly but did not intentionally or directly cause the traffic obstruction, and there was no intention to do so.
In addition, in light of the purport of the Constitution guaranteeing freedom of assembly and demonstration, the degree of restrictions on traffic pertaining to the assembly and demonstration in this case falls under the scope deemed to be acceptable by the state and third parties, and thus, illegality is excluded as a justifiable act that does not go against social norms.
Nevertheless, the lower court found Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. On May 10, 2012, with respect to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the event that the defendant attended at the time was not an assembly but an assembly, and it was completed within 30 minutes without any traffic obstacle.
In addition, since the exercise does not cause a direct and obvious danger to the benefit of others or public peace and order, the dispersion order was unlawful, and the defendant is the same.