(a) The case holding that the defendant cannot be recognized as having committed a crime of inciting a demonstration which clearly and directly threatens public peace and order by means of collective assault, intimidation, destruction, damage, fire, etc., and that the defendant's act cannot be recognized as an act of inciting the above assembly and demonstration;

B. When the Defendants, who were trying to attend a debate held in a school lecture due to university students, failed to bring about the purpose of preventing the entrance and exit of the school authorities and the police, in a case where the Defendants, as well as other persons who were trying to attend the above meeting, presented the relief and singing that were generally personality and behaviored at the time within about 20 minutes in the presence of the Defendants, i.e., within a short period of about 20 minutes, whether the Defendants’ “implementer” of an outdoor assembly or demonstration subject to prior duty to report under Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (negative)

A. The case holding that since the defendant, a member of the National Assembly who was trying to participate in the debate held in a school party platform, was unable to attend the debate due to the school authority and the police's prohibition of access, the student representative sent to the participants of the debate the student's audience the fact that he could not attend the debate and the fact that he could not attend the debate, and that he could not be allowed to do so because he was detained by the so-called city state case at the time of the above assembly, the student who completed the above assembly could clearly pose a direct threat to public safety and order due to collective assault, intimidation, destruction, damage, fire prevention, etc., but at the time of the above act, the above defendant was proceeding in a peaceful atmosphere without being scheduled to proceed to the demonstration after the above assembly, the above defendant could not be predicted to be a development by demonstration. It is hard to find that the defendant's above behavior was not sufficient to find that the defendant's above behavior was a crime of demonstration by inciting the defendant.

B. The "implementer" of an outdoor assembly or demonstration, which is subject to prior duty to report under Article 6 (1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, refers to a person or organization holding the assembly or demonstration under his/her own name under his/her responsibility. As long as the defendants endeavored to attend the national debate under the above Article 6 (1) but it cannot be achieved by the school authorities and the police's right access to the interview, it means that the defendants' right of access to the assembly or demonstration was considerably worn out and it was committed by the school authorities and the police's right of access. In other words, the defendants' right of access to the assembly or demonstration is not planned and organized by the defendants in advance. However, since the defendants' right of access to the assembly or demonstration cannot be seen as the defendants' right of access to the assembly or demonstration in violation of Article 6 (1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the defendants' right of access to the assembly or demonstration cannot be seen as the defendants' right of access to the assembly or demonstration in violation of Article 6 (1) of the Assembly or Demonstration Act.

(a) Article 5 (1) 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 5 (2) and 19 (3) (b) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act; Articles 2 subparagraph 3, 6 (1), and 19 (2) of the same Act;

A and six others

Prosecutor

Seoul High Court Decision 87No1404 delivered on August 22, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Prosecutor's ground of appeal No. 1

The court below's decision that the defendant's above act of conspiracy and demonstration was not likely to constitute a crime of assault and demonstration since it was hard to find that the defendant's act of conspiracy and demonstration was against the law, and the defendant's act of conspiracy and demonstration was not likely to constitute a crime of assault and demonstration since the defendant's act of conspiracy and demonstration was nothing more than 70, and the defendant's act of conspiracy and demonstration was not likely to constitute a crime of assault and demonstration, and thus, it was hard to find that the defendant's act of conspiracy and demonstration was not likely to constitute a crime of assault and demonstration, and that the defendant's act of conspiracy and demonstration was not likely to constitute a crime of assault and demonstration, and that the defendant's act of conspiracy and demonstration was no more than 17:45, and that the defendant's act of conspiracy and demonstration was no more likely to constitute a crime of assault and demonstration, and thus, it was hard to find that the defendant's act of conspiracy and demonstration was against public peace and order at the time of such assembly and demonstration.

2. Determination on the ground of appeal No. 2

The court below found that the defendants, who were trying to attend the above national debate, did not submit a report under Article 6 (1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act to the chief of the competent police station from September 15:30 to 15:50, and collected 50 people, etc. who were in the vicinity of the members of the Korean War Association which were gathered in the vicinity of B University from September 15:30, 1985, and the defendants returned to the court below, and held the above demonstration by taking full account of the relevant evidence, such as the situation in which the defendants started to participate in the national debate, but it was impossible to prevent the entrance and exit of the school authorities and the police, and the court below found that there was no reasonable ground for finding that there was no organization or demonstration in violation of the rules of evidence and there was no reasonable ground for finding that there was no organization or demonstration in violation of the rules of evidence as mentioned above.

In addition, Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides that a person who intends to hold an outdoor assembly or demonstration shall submit a report stating its purpose, date, time, place, organizer, etc. to the chief of the competent police station 48 hours prior to the outdoor assembly or demonstration (Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act). Here, the term “implementer of an assembly or demonstration” refers to a person or organization holding an assembly or demonstration under his/her own name and responsibility (Article 2 subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act). As seen above, the above demonstration is not planned and organized by the Defendants. However, the Defendants were willing to participate in the above-mentioned national debate without attending the school authority and the police’s restraint, and the Defendants did not appear to have any error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the contents of the assembly or demonstration as seen above, and thus, the Defendants cannot be deemed not guilty of the facts charged by misapprehending the legal principles as to the organizer of an outdoor assembly or demonstration as stated in Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

3. Therefore, the prosecutor's appeal against the Defendants is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Jae-ho (Presiding Justice)