The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Determination on the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

A. The Constitutional Court rendered a decision of inconsistency with the Constitution that “The part concerning “the National Assembly Assembly Assembly Assembly Assembly Decision” in Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8424, May 11, 2007; hereinafter “the Assembly Decision”) and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the same Act in Article 23 shall not be in conformity with the Constitution,” and “the above provision of the Act shall continue to apply until it is amended by December 31, 2019,” and “the above provision of the Act shall continue to apply until it is amended by the time limit of December 31, 2019” [the Constitutional Court Decision 2013Hun-Ba322, 2016Hun-Ba354, 2016Hun-Ba354, 2017Hun-Ba360, 471, 2018Hun-Ga34, 2018, 394, etc., and hereinafter “the Act”).

B. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution is a modified form that does not stipulate the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act, but constitutes a decision of unconstitutionality as to legal provisions.

Article 23 Subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act stipulates that Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act should be violated, and Article 11 Subparag. 1 of the same Act is combined with Article 23 Subparag. 3 of the same Act. Thus, Article 11 Subparag. 1 of the same Act leads to a combination with Article 23 Subparag. 3 of the same Act.

Therefore, the decision of inconsistency with the Constitution of this case is a decision of unconstitutionality on the legal provisions of punishment.

C. In addition, in a case where a decision of unconstitutionality is rendered with respect to the provision of penal law in accordance with the main sentence of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, the provision becomes retroactively null and void, and the court shall render a judgment of not guilty as to a prosecuted case against which a public prosecution was instituted upon the application

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do7562 Decided June 23, 2011, etc.).