Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on Defendant C and the judgment of the court of second instance are reversed.

Defendant

C Fine 2,00.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants 1, misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the Defendants’ violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (A) or misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the Defendants’ mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (1) (hereinafter “instant assembly”) constitutes an assembly in which the Defendants’ part (hereinafter “instant assembly”) constitutes “cases where there is no risk of spreading to a large scale assembly or demonstration” under Article 11 subparag. 4(b) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), and the Defendants’ act constitutes a foreign organization’s act, and thus, it is permissible outside a rooftop assembly, as it is unlikely to infringe on the U.S. Embassy’s functions and peace.

(2) The United Nations Human Rights Council recommended the Government of the Republic of Korea to guarantee the rights to peaceful assemblies and freedom of association through “the United Nations Special Report on the Rights to the Freedom of Peace and Formation” and, if deemed to be an outdoor assembly prohibited from the instant assembly, it is in violation of international law.

(3) The assertion that an assembly is not reported even if the assembly is not reported within 100 meters from the boundary of the office building of the U.S. Embassy in Korea is logical inconsistency. The prosecutor held the assembly in collusion with the Defendants at the lower court.

Preliminaryly, an application for changes in Bill of Indictment was filed, and the court of original judgment permitted it.

It is unfair to apply Article 22 (2) other than Article 24 (5) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on the ground that there was no dispersion order by the police.

B) misunderstanding the legal principles on Defendant C’s interference with the performance of official duties (as to the judgment of the second instance judgment), Defendant C did not have any intent to combine with the one person of a demonstration, and there was no act of assaulting the police officer except spits once. Even if the act of assault was committed, it is so far as it is against the police officer’s unfair excessive suppression, and the illegality is dismissed as a legitimate defense or a legitimate act.

2) The first instance judgment is unfair (as to the judgment of the court of first instance).