beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against Defendant C is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Suwon District Court Panel Division.
Reasons
1. Of the lower judgment, the Prosecutor appealed on the part of the lower judgment that found the Defendants guilty, but there is no statement in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief on the grounds of objection.
2. We examine the grounds of appeal as to the acquittal portion of the judgment below.
As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the above Defendants A and B constituted an outdoor assembly, the court below affirmed the judgment of the first instance court which acquitted the above part of the charges on the ground that the above Defendants A and B cannot be deemed as an "open assembly" requiring prior report, on the grounds that it is apparent that the above Defendants held the assembly before the conference room of the Gyeonggi-do Construction and Transportation Standing Committee for the Construction and Transportation of the Gyeonggi-do Council, which is the place where the above Defendants held the assembly is located, and that the front of the conference room of the construction and transportation of the Gyeonggi-do Council, which is the place where the above Defendants held, does not constitute an "open", and that the entrance of the general public is controlled and controlled by the general public, it is necessary to take prior measures to prevent infringement of the interests of others and the community, and thus it is difficult to view it as a place requiring prior report by the head of the competent police station.
Examining the record in light of the provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and relevant legal principles, which defines Sheet “ outdoor assembly” as an assembly in a place where no ceiling exists or all sides are not closed, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.
The judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to outdoor assembly and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
B. As to the allegation in the grounds of appeal that the act of removing tent constitutes legitimate performance of official duties, Article 136 of the Criminal Act is stipulated.