All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

In full view of the constitutional value and function of the freedom of assembly, the constitutional spirit of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the purport of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration that declared the prohibition of permission for assembly (hereinafter “Act”), etc., a prior report system regarding outdoor assembly and demonstration is established, etc., the report is significant in providing specific information about assembly to an administrative agency for cooperation in the maintenance of public order, and it is not changed into an application for permission for assembly. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the outdoor assembly or demonstration is not allowed to be held beyond the scope of protection of the Constitution solely on the ground that the report was not filed.

Therefore, even if Article 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not separately stipulate the requirements for dispersion as the object of an outdoor assembly or demonstration which is not reported, it may be ordered to dissolve pursuant to the above provision only when the outdoor assembly or demonstration clearly poses a direct risk to another person’s legal interests or public peace and order, and only when the outdoor assembly or demonstration satisfies such requirements, it may be punished pursuant to Article 24 subparag. 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2010Do6388 Decided April 19, 2012). Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court reversed the judgment of the first instance that found the Defendants guilty on the ground that the instant facts charged constitute a time when there is no proof of a crime, and sentenced the Defendants not guilty.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the court below’s measure is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, it erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the crime of non-compliance with the dispersion order under