All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In full view of the constitutional value and function of the freedom of assembly as to the prosecutor’s appeal, the constitutional spirit that declared the prohibition of permission for assembly, and the purport of the prior notification system regarding outdoor assembly and demonstration under the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Act”), 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 as a request 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 first instance judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act as of June 8, 2011 and June 9, 2011 among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds that it constituted a case where there is no proof of crime, and sentenced the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the aforementioned legal principles and the record, although the judgment of the court below is somewhat insufficient, it is justified to determine not guilty of this part of the charges on the ground that the prosecutor’s proof is insufficient.