The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The lower court determined that it was extremely difficult to achieve the purpose of the reporting system on the grounds that the Defendant’s act of hosting the outdoor assembly, etc. of this case, such as the instant outdoor assembly, was “an act clearly deviating from the scope of the report” as prescribed by Article 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

For the reasons that it is difficult to see the Defendant, the first instance judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the charge of this case on the ground that there is no proof of crime.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the record, the lower court’s determination is justifiable.

The lower court did not err in its judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, and exceeding the bounds of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on “an act clearly deviating from the reported scope” as prescribed by Article 16(4)3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.