In a case where the Defendant, the head of the division of the Trade Union branch of the Eul corporation, claimed that he would employ union members at the entrance of the construction site of the Eul corporation, used 20 union members and 3 broadcasting vehicles, and used 20 union members and 3 broadcasting vehicles, and submitted a summary judgment for violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act to the summary judgment seven times before the private employees attend the work, and applied for formal trial, the case holding that in light of all the circumstances, the Defendant was not guilty on the ground that the Defendant did not have proved that “an act of harming neighbors by an excessive sound”, which is prohibited under Article 3(1)21 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, was an act prohibited under Article 3(1)21 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, was an act

The defendant, the head of the organization division of the labor union division of Eul, argued that he would employ union members at the entrance of the construction site of Eul corporation, and mobilized 20 union members and 3 broadcasting vehicles, and had engaged in an act of disturbance in neighboring areas seven times at the time before the private employees attend the work, and was referred to the summary judgment for violation of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, and requested formal trial.

Article 6 (1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act was reported by the defendant, and the defendant's holding of an outdoor assembly does not seem to exceed the scope of the above report, and it seems that the noise standards that must be observed in the residential area, etc. before sunrise after sunset under Article 14 (1) of the same Act and Article 14 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act were observed. Nevertheless, if it is interpreted that the assembly constitutes a light crime solely on the ground that the assembly was conducted in the vicinity of the apartment during the new wall period, it would be an outcome to punish the strict criteria for restriction of fundamental rights prescribed in the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and there was a complaint against some residents such as a 18-time civil petition report, but it seems that there was no specific noise level within the residential complex, and it seems that there was no illegality in measuring the purpose of the assembly, and considering the situation before the entrance at the site of the construction site, it is difficult to view that the defendant's act was beyond the scope of the assembly and demonstration, and thus, it cannot be seen that the defendant's act cannot be justified.

Article 21(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea; Articles 2, 3(1)21 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act; Articles 6(1), 10, and 14(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Article 14 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the Assembly and Demonstration Act

Defendant

Bagwon

Attorney Seo Chang-soo et al. and four others

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of facts constituting the offense in the summary judgment;

The Defendant is the head of ○○○ Trade Union’s △△△ Branch.

From October 29, 2019 to November 5, 2019, the Defendant asserted to demand the employment of ○○○ Trade Union Labor Union Labor Union Labor Union Labor Union Labor Union Labor Union Labor Union 20 persons and three broadcasting vehicles at the 1st entrance of the construction site at Si-si ( Address omitted). The Defendant convened a meeting by mobilization of 20 labor union members and 3 broadcasting vehicles.

In this process, even if the employees of the private sector worked prior to the attendance, the Defendant committed an act of disturbance in neighboring areas seven times as indicated below.

Table contained in the main sentence - The method of performing daily acts from October 29, 2019 to October 05:40 of to October 06:30 of 2019, in which music through the sound facilities of broadcasting vehicles excessively sleeps neighbors on October 30, 2019, the method of slicking neighbors on October 31, 2019, the same day of November 2, 2019, the same day of November 4, 2019, the same day of November 5, 2019, the same day of November 5, 2019.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, the court found the fact that the Defendant, at the time and place of the summary judgment written by the court, the Defendant laid music with the sound device of the broadcasting vehicle, and the purpose of the Defendant’s meeting was to assert the requirements related to the working conditions of the Nonindicted Co., Ltd., a subcontractor at the construction site. The employees of the Nonindicted Co., Ltd. were ordinarily going to work after 06:30 a.m., and some of the loudspeakers used in the meeting had a neighboring apartment complex on the direction of the neighboring apartment complex, and the fact that some of the residents around the above place of meeting had been 18 times reported a civil petition seeking resolution about noise at the police station.

B. After confirming the above facts, the chief of the Silung Police Station requested a summary judgment by applying Article 3(1)21 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act to the Defendant. While the court found the Defendant guilty and sentenced to a fine of KRW 20,000,000, the Defendant asserted that he is not guilty and claimed a formal trial of this case.

C. According to the above facts, a large noise occurred in the process of the Defendant’s assembly, and the neighboring residents appear to have obstructed the surface of the water or enjoy peace in daily life at the new wall time, and the Defendant also seems to have tried to utilize it as a means of achieving the purpose through assembly, with the awareness of such circumstances, taking into account the possibility of filing a civil petition by neighboring residents.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the fact that the Defendant merely based on the facts and the evidence presented in the above paragraph (a) cannot be deemed to have been proven to the extent that it is beyond a reasonable doubt that he/she “influences neighbors with excessive voice,” which is prohibited by the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act, through an assembly.

① On October 18, 2019, the Defendant submitted a report on an outdoor assembly that specifies the purpose, date, time, place, method, etc. of the assembly and demonstration pursuant to Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act. There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant’s act, while holding an assembly, exceeded the reported scope.

② Article 14(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 14 [Attachment 2] of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act stipulate the standards to be observed when the organizer of an assembly produces noise by using a loudspeaker. According to that, the noise standards to be observed in the residential area, etc. before sunrise and after sunset are below 60dB. There is no evidence to deem that the Defendant generated noise exceeding the above standards. According to the result measured by the police officer dispatched at the time of the instant case, the noise standards are observed.

(3) The Constitution guarantees the freedom of assembly as one of the fundamental rights of citizens as well as the freedom of expression (Article 21(1)). The freedom of assembly includes the freedom of assembly and demonstration, namely, a collective expression of the opinion formed through an assembly and that may affect an unspecified number of people. An assembly and demonstration is highly likely to cause public peace and order or legal peace and peace compared to an individual expression given its nature. In particular, an outdoor assembly and demonstration is highly likely to conflict with other people’s rights and interests compared with indoor assembly and demonstration (Articles 3 and 5). The Act on Assembly and Demonstration generally guarantees the right to peaceful assembly and demonstration (Article 3 and Article 5); the same shall be limited to the person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly and demonstration as one of the fundamental rights of citizens; the same shall be limited to the freedom of assembly and demonstration to maintain the order and order of the organizer of an outdoor assembly and the head of the competent police station before and after the date of the assembly and demonstration (including its representative, if so, before and after 720 hours prior to the assembly and demonstration).

As such, the Assembly and Demonstration Act has restrictions on public safety and order or legal peace already taken into account. However, if the Defendant’s compliance with the restrictions imposed thereon is interpreted to fall under ordinary crimes solely on the ground that the assembly was conducted in the vicinity of the apartment site during the new wall hours, this would result in imposing strict criteria for restriction on fundamental rights as prescribed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act. If a certain act in the assembly is detrimental to public peace, measures should be taken in accordance with the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and in particular, if public peace is harmed by night outdoor assembly, legal measures on assembly and demonstration should be taken in order to prevent such act. There is no evidence that such measures were taken in this case (see, e.g., request for simple cooperation with low thorium).

④ Article 2 of the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act provides that “In the application of this Act, due care shall be exercised so as not to unfairly infringe the rights of citizens, and this Act shall not be applied for any other purpose beyond its original purpose.” Considering the contents and purport of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration as well as the above, barring any special circumstance, such as an assembly or demonstration which causes damage to the extent that is not acceptable by social norms to achieve substantially unfair purpose, the assembly or demonstration pursuant to the procedures and methods prescribed in the Act on Assembly and Demonstration shall not be deemed unlawful. 4)

In this case, it is difficult to view that the evidence submitted alone led to the extent that the Defendant’s act could not be acceptable under the social norms, considering the fact that some of the residents complained against damages, but it appears that the specific noise level in the residential complex was not measured, that it was difficult to find out any illegality for the purpose of the assembly, and that the place of assembly was front of the entrance at the construction site.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the facts charged in this case constitute a case where there is no proof of crime, and thus, the defendant is acquitted under the latter part of Article 325 of the

Judges Kim Jong-tae

Note 1) “A person who disturbs neighbors by excessively increasing the sound of musical instruments, radio, television, electric gramographs, bells, bells, loudspeakers, electrical motors, etc., or by talking or singing in a large amount.”

(2) Supreme Court Decision 2015Do17738 Decided December 22, 2017

3) An assembly or demonstration is an act of affecting, or under pressureing, the opinions of many and unspecified persons in the process of meeting with a common purpose, leading to a certain degree of noise in the process of transmitting opinions to many and unspecified persons participating in the meeting or not participating in the meeting. As such, the general public, who does not participate in the assembly or demonstration, has a duty to allow a certain degree of noise, and in light of the place, mode, contents, method, method, and result, etc. of the assembly or demonstration, if a noise causing serious damage to others beyond the scope of achievement of the objective of the assembly or demonstration beyond the scope of achievement of the objective of the assembly or demonstration, it cannot be deemed as a legitimate act as an exercise of unlawful power, but within a reasonable scope, it cannot be said that the act of using a loudspeaker, etc. is unlawful (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do746, Sept. 11, 2008).

(4) Supreme Court Decision 2003Do4148 Decided October 9, 2003 ruled that in applying the Punishment of Minor Offenses Act to missionary activities in accordance with freedom of religion, it is necessary to strictly determine each case through comparative balancing between legal interests, such as whether it deviates from the scope and constitutes an infringement of other legal interests.