2018No8 A. Injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties

(b) General traffic obstruction;

(c) Interference with business;

(d) Performance of official duties;

(e) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint residence intrusion);

(f) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act;

J. 1. A.D. (*********************)) on the part of the Republic of Korea. 1.2. (d. d. d. d. d. d. (f)

The Defendants and the Prosecutor who are the Appellants

The air route equality, Kim Sung-dong (prosecutions) and Shohee (Public Trial)

Defense Counsel (for Defendant A)

Law Firm aiming at Law Firm (Attorney A and B)

(n)

Busan District Court Decision 201Gohap813, 814 (Concurrent) decided December 2, 2014

Busan High Court Decision 2014No866 decided June 11, 2015

Supreme Court Decision 2017Do10109 Decided December 22, 2017

April 12, 2018

Of the judgment of the court below, the guilty part against the Defendants and the acquittal part against Defendant A.

6.12. The violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to non-compliance with the dispersion order and the non-guilty part of the defendant B shall be reversed;

Defendant A shall be punished by imprisonment for a year and six months, by a fine of 2,00,00 won for a fine of 2,00,000 won for Defendant B, and by a fine of 3,00,00 won for each of the defendants A.

When Defendant B and C fail to pay the above fine, each of the above Defendants shall be confined in a workhouse for the period calculated by converting 100,000 won into one day.

However, with respect to Defendant A, the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Defendant B and C shall be ordered to pay an amount equivalent to the above fines.

Of the facts charged against the Defendants, it is not guilty that the Defendants violated the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to their non-compliance with the dispersion Order on July 9, 2011.

The summary of each judgment of not guilty portion against the Defendants is publicly announced.

1. Progress of judgment;

A. The Prosecutor brought a public prosecution against Defendant A as follows.

A) Criminal facts related to the primary desired bus (from June 11 to June 12, 201)

(1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the hosting of any night demonstration, such as the person, etc. on June 12, 2011

(2) Interference with general traffic, such as children, etc. on June 12, 2011

(3) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to non-compliance with the dispersion order on June 12, 2011

(4) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, including a person, etc. on June 12, 2011 (joint residence intrusion)

B) Criminal facts related to the second desired bus (from July 9 to July 10, 201)

(1) Violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to the hosting of any night demonstration on July 9, 201

(2) Interference with general traffic on July 9, 201

(3) Injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties on July 9, 2011

(4) The Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to Holding an unreported assembly, such as the person, etc. on July 9, 201

(5) Criminal facts related to the third desired bus for which an order for dispersion was issued on July 9, 201 (the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to non-compliance with the order for dispersion issued on July 9, 201)

(1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to holding an assembly held without a report on July 30, 2011 (shipbuilding)

(2) Violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to holding a unreported assembly on July 31, 201 (National Police Agency)

D) Criminal facts related to the fourth desired bus (from August 27 to August 28, 201)

(1) Violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to the hosting of a self-reported assembly on August 27, 2011

(2) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the holding of any night demonstration, such as the person, etc. on August 27, 2011

③ Criminal facts (from October 8 to October 9, 201) relating to desired buses 5 primary, including persons, etc., on August 27, 2011

(1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the hosting of a non-reported assembly on October 8, 2011 (* FRa)

(2) Interference with general traffic on October 8, 201

(3) Violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to holding a non-reported assembly on October 9, 2011 (non-fuse square)

(4) Violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to holding a non-reported assembly on October 9, 2011 (Musan Station)

(f) Other

(1) interference with business on August 16, 2010 (* electronic)

2. Interference with business on October 15, 2010 (F)

③ On August 10, 2010, the prosecutor brought a public prosecution against Defendant B as follows.

A) Criminal facts related to the primary desired bus (from June 11 to June 12, 201)

(1) Violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to the participation in any night demonstration, including the person, etc., on June 12, 2011

(2) Interference with general traffic, such as children, etc. on June 12, 2011

(3) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to non-compliance with the dispersion order on June 12, 2011

(4) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, including a person, etc. on June 12, 2011 (joint residence intrusion)

B) Criminal facts related to the second desired bus (from July 9 to July 10, 201)

(1) Violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to the participation in the night demonstration on July 9, 201

(2) Interference with general traffic on July 9, 201

③ On July 9, 2011, the prosecutor brought a public prosecution against Defendant C on the following facts charged by the prosecutor.

A) Criminal facts related to the primary desired bus (from June 11 to June 12, 201)

(1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the hosting of any night demonstration, such as the person, etc. on June 12, 2011

(2) Interference with general traffic, such as children, etc. on June 12, 2011

(3) Violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, including a person, etc. on June 12, 2011 (joint residence intrusion)

B) Criminal facts related to the second desired bus (from July 9 to July 10, 201)

(1) Violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to the hosting of any night demonstration on July 9, 201

(2) Interference with general traffic on July 9, 201

(3) Injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties on July 9, 2011

(4) Criminal facts related to the third desired bus (the crime against the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to a failure to comply with an order to dissolve, including the person, etc. on July 9, 201)

(1) Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on July 31, 201 due to the hosting of a unreported assembly, such as the person, etc. on July 30, 201

(3) Violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to a failure to comply with an order of dissolution, such as the person, etc. on July 30, 201

B. The lower court’s judgment and the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s Appeal 1) against Defendant A, and the lower court sentenced Defendant A to two years by recognizing that Defendants (1), (2), (4), (2), (2), (3), (4), (5), (f) were guilty.

As to Defendant B, the lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the facts listed in the subparagraphs of paragraphs (3) and (c), (d), and (e) of this paragraph, and (b) which found Defendant B guilty of the facts listed in the said paragraphs, the lower court sentenced Defendant B of KRW 3 million by recognizing that Defendant B was guilty of the facts listed in the said paragraphs (1), (2), (4), (b) and (3) and (3).

The lower court rendered a judgment of not guilty of the facts of paragraph (3) among the facts of paragraph (1) (B) and rendered a judgment of dismissing the prosecution as to paragraph (1).

3) As to Defendant C, the lower court found Defendant C guilty of the facts set forth in paragraph (3), (b), (2), (4), (c) of the aforesaid paragraph, and sentenced Defendant C to a fine of KRW 5 million.

The lower court rendered a judgment dismissing prosecution as to the facts of paragraph (1) among ①, ②, ③ the facts of paragraph (2) (b), ③ the facts of paragraph (c), ② the facts of paragraph (1), and ② the facts of paragraph (b).

4) As to this, Defendant A appealed on the remaining guilty facts except for paragraphs (1) and (2) among the convictions recognized by the lower court, Defendant B and C appealed on the ground of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles on the whole convictions recognized by the lower court, and all the Defendants appealed on the ground of unfair sentencing. The Prosecutor appealed on the whole acquittals as indicated in the lower judgment, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing on all the Defendants

C. The judgment of the court prior to the remand and the appeal 1 by the Defendants and the Prosecutor) The appellate court prior to the remand excluded the Defendants from the scope of each of the above dismissal parts against the Defendants from the object of attack and defense between the parties, and thus, the scope of the trial prior to the remand is limited to each of the convictions and innocences against the Defendants in the judgment of the court of first instance, and all of the defendants and the prosecutor's allegation of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, and the allegation of unfair sentencing by the Defendants B, C and the Prosecutor were dismissed

Therefore, the judgment of the court prior to the remanding of the judgment below reversed the guilty portion against Defendant A, and sentenced Defendant A to two years of imprisonment and three years of suspended sentence, and both Defendant B and C’s appeal and the Prosecutor’s appeal against the Defendants were dismissed. 2) As to this, Defendant A’s appeal against the conviction portion excluding paragraph 1 and 2, Defendant B and C appealed appealed on the grounds of insufficient deliberation, violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, and misapprehension of legal principles as to the entire guilty portion, and the Prosecutor appealed on the grounds of violation of the principle of free evaluation of evidence and misapprehension of legal principles as to each acquitted portion against the Defendants.

C. Judgment of the Supreme Court

1) The Supreme Court accepted the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal on the charge of the Defendants’ violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Defendant A”) due to the Defendants’ failure to comply with the dispersion order on July 9, 201 (hereinafter “Defendant A”) and the charge of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Defendant C”) among the charges of violation of paragraphs (5) and (b) and (4) among the charges of violation of the Act, and the charge of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the Defendants’ failure to comply with the dispersion order on June 12, 2011 (hereinafter “Defendant A”) among the charges of violation of paragraph (3) and paragraph (a) among the charges of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

2) As to the scope of reversal and return, the Supreme Court shall reverse the part of the facts charged, and the remaining facts charged constitute concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act.

Since one sentence should be pronounced in the fraternity, the part of conviction against Defendant A and the part of acquittal against Defendant A in the judgment of the court prior to remanding, the part of violation of the Act due to non-compliance with the dispersion Order on June 12, 201, the part of conviction against Defendant B, and the part of conviction against Defendant C are reversed, respectively, and the remainder of the appeal against Defendant A by the prosecutor and the appeal against Defendant C were dismissed.

2. Scope of the trial of the political party after remand;

A. Of the judgment of the party before remanding, the part of the remaining innocence of Defendant A, excluding the violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to the failure to comply with the order of dispersion on June 12, 201, and the part of the acquittal of Defendant C (Defendant A, C, D, and E), among the part of the judgment of the party before remanding, (1), (2) among the part of the non-guilty of Defendant C (Defendant C: A), (3) among the part of the judgment of the party to the trial before remand, (2) among the part of the judgment of the party to the trial before remand, and (2) the part of the judgment of the public prosecutor was dismissed

B. Of the facts charged against the Defendants, the remaining convictions except for the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the Defendants’ non-compliance with an order of dispersion on July 9, 2011, were rejected in the final appeal on the grounds that the Defendants’ assertion in the grounds of appeal was groundless, and the final judgment became final and conclusive at the same time with the judgment of the court of final appeal, and the court that received the remand cannot make a decision contrary thereto (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do920, May 11, 2006), and each of the aforementioned convictions should be subject to the judgment prior to remand.

C. Ultimately, the substantial scope of the trial after remanding the case is determined as follows: Defendant A and B’s violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion Order on June 12, 201; and Defendants’ violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion Order on July 9, 2011.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants

With respect to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order by the person (the second desired bus) from July 9, 2011, the grounds for dissolution issued by the first winter D on July 9, 201 and the reasons for dissolution as stated in the facts charged do not coincide with the reasons for dissolution issued by the Seoul National Assembly’s first winter mitigation D on July 9, 201. Thus, even if the Defendants were not dissolved, the crime of non

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Prosecutor (Defendant A and B)

With respect to the violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to the non-compliance with the dispersion order on June 12, 201, Defendant A and B, the issue of whether the request for voluntary dispersion is made ought to be determined by comprehensively taking account of not only the phrase of the notification but also the situation at the time of the notification of the voluntary dispersion, the method of notification and the interval of time and time. If the dispersion order was issued on June 11, 2011 at the time of the instant case on June 22: 46 and 22:50, it is reasonable to view the subsequent measures as the dispersion order not the request for voluntary dispersion. Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendants of this part of the facts charged on the ground that there was no legitimate dispersion order,

4. Determination

(a) Relevant legal principles;

Article 8 of the Court Organization Act provides that "The decision of a higher court in a trial shall bind the lower court with respect to the relevant case." The decision of the lower court in fact and in law, which the court of final appeal considers as the ground for reversal even after the latter part of Article 436 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, shall bind the lower court. Although the Criminal Procedure Act does not provide any corresponding express provision, the court of final appeal, which takes the principle of law, may unreasonably intervene in the propriety of the lower court's decision as to fact-finding in accordance with Article 383 or 384 of the Criminal Procedure Act. Therefore, the court of final appeal, which has been remanded from the court of final appeal, has a binding force on the final judgment that has become the ground for reversal of the judgment of final appeal. Therefore, the court of final appeal, in a trial of the relevant case, shall be bound so long as the new evidence is presented during the trial process after remand and changes in the relationship of evidence that

4. 9. See Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10572 Decided 2008

B. Determination as to the violation of the Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order on July 9, 2011

1) The summary of this part of the facts charged against the Defendants is as follows.

22: At around 50: 7,000 persons, "the second desired bus" participated in the demonstration, and occupied the lanes prior to the Hwon road located in the Dobong-dong, Busan Metropolitan City, in the direction of JJ Industries (hereinafter referred to as "the second demonstration"), and as to this, on July 9, 201, from D delegated by the head of the competent police authority on the ground that the failure to report was an assembly: from 16 to 26:0 on July 10, 201, he did not immediately dissolve the demonstration after being ordered to do so.

2) Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the head of the competent police authority”) provides that “the head of the competent police authority may demand voluntary dispersion of an assembly or demonstration falling under any of the following subparagraphs within a reasonable time, and if such demand is not complied with, he/she may order dispersion.” Article 20(2) provides that “All participants shall, upon the order of dispersion under paragraph (1), be dissolved without delay.” In light of the relevant provision’s interpretation, the head of the competent police authority must specifically notify whether the cause for dissolution falls under any of the subparagraphs of Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (see Supreme Court Decision 201Do7193, Feb. 9, 2012; 201Do7193, Feb. 16, 2012; 200Do31314, Apr. 1, 2014).

Therefore, the lower court found the Defendants guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the dispersion order ordered at least three times in reduction constituted a dispersion order meeting lawful requirements. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the dispersion order under Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

C. Determination as to the violation of the Act due to the failure to comply with the dispersion order on June 12, 2011

1) According to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the lower court and the trial prior to remand, ① the demonstration described in this part of the facts charged (hereinafter “the first demonstration”) was not reported and continued to be more than 00 on June 11, 201; ② From 36:0 on June 12, 2011 to 02:0:0 on June 12, 201 from the police broadcast vehicle to 00:0:0 on 111 occasions, the participants of the demonstration were able to know at the Youngdo Police Station. The number of participants of the assembly and the number of minutes were 0:0 on 10:0 on 20,000 on 10,000 on 23:0 on 10,000 on 1:5,000 on 1:3:0 on 4:0 on 1:5,000 on 1: on 1:3.m., on 1:0 on 2.m., the first demonstration to m.

In light of the progress of the first demonstration, the contents of the police broadcast and the electric sign board display, the interval and frequency of broadcasting, and the situation of the demonstration at the time of broadcasting, etc., the first demonstration constitutes an unreported night demonstration. Although the demand of the competent police authority for voluntary dispersion was not made to the participants of the demonstration of this case without complying with the demand of the participants of the demonstration of this case, the order of dispersion was issued three times or more in the situation where the benefit and interest of others, such as going to J Heavy Industries, going beyond the fence of J Heavy Industries, or going beyond the fence of J Heavy Heavy Industries, is obviously causing direct danger to the public safety and order, and the participants of the demonstration could have sufficiently known that the order of dispersion was issued by the display of broadcasting and electric sign board. The aforementioned police broadcast constitutes legitimate mountain order that complies with the procedural requirements under Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 17 of the Enforcement Decree of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

2) Thus, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of this part of the facts charged on the ground that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to view that there was a legitimate dispersion order at the time of the first demonstration. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to dispersion order under Article 20(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration

5. Conclusion

Therefore, among the guilty portion of the Defendants of the lower judgment, the Defendants’ appeal against the violation of the Act due to non-compliance with the dispersion order on July 9, 201, and the Defendant A’s acquittal portion of the lower judgment on June 12, 2011 and the prosecutor’s appeal against the violation of the Act due to non-compliance with the dispersion order on June 12, 201 and the acquittal portion of Defendant B, there are grounds for reversal of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. Each of the aforementioned parts and the lower judgment’s conviction against the Defendants are in concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and thus, one sentence should be imposed pursuant to Article 38(1) of the Criminal Act. Therefore, the conviction portion against

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the assertion of unfair sentencing by the Defendants and the prosecutor, the guilty part of the judgment of the court below and the acquittal part of the Defendant A except the remainder of the acquittal part of the Defendant A and the acquittal part of the Defendant C prior to the remand of the case finalized by the judgment of the court below pursuant to Article 364(2) and (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

12. Violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act due to non-compliance with the dispersion order and the non-guilty part of Defendant B are reversed, and this decision shall be rendered again through pleading as follows:

The reasons for the new judgment on the reversal part)

Criminal facts and summary of evidence

The summary of the facts constituting the crime recognized by this court and the summary of the evidence is the same as the statement in each corresponding column of the judgment of the court below, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with Article 369

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

○ Defendant A: Article 23 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the main sentence of Article 10 (1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 185 and 30 (general traffic obstruction point) of the Criminal Act, Article 2(2) and 1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (joint residence intrusion point) of the Criminal Act, Articles 14(2) and 144(1), 136(1), and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 22(2), and 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 24 subparag. 5, Article 20(2), and Article 30 (1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 31 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 31(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 36(1) of the Criminal Act, and Article 30(1) and (3) of the Criminal Act

○ Defendant B: Article 23 subparag. 3 and the main sentence of Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act, Articles 2(2) and 185 of the Criminal Act, Article 2(1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act, Article 24 subparag. 5 and Article 20(2)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (a violation of an order of dispersion)

○ Defendant C: Article 2(2) and (1)1 of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act, Article 319(1) of the Criminal Act (joint residence intrusion points), Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act (general traffic obstruction points), Articles 24 subparag. 5 and 20(2) and 20(1)2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, Article 30 of the Criminal Act (the point of non-compliance with an order of dispersion)

1. Commercial competition;

○ Defendant A: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (the punishment prescribed for the bodily injury resulting from the obstruction of performance of special duties against K, L, and M)

Defendant B: Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act (amended by Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to Participation in Night Demonstration on June 12, 201, and punishment imposed on June 12, 201 on the violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration due to participation in Night Demonstration, and punishment imposed on the violation of serious general traffic obstruction on June 12, 201)

1. Selection of punishment;

○ Defendant A: each sentence of imprisonment, ○ Defendant B, and C: Selection of each fine

1. Handling concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant B: The latter part of Article 37 and the main sentence of Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act (the crime of each of the judgment of the Defendant and the general traffic obstruction, etc. between the two crimes)

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

○ Defendant A: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Concurrent Punishment Concerning Bodily Injury resulting from Special Obstruction of Official Duties)

○ Defendant B: former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Punishment and Punishment)

○ Defendant C: the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act. Article 50 (Aggravation of Concurrent Crimes with Punishment for Obstruction of General Transport Obstruction, Punishment, etc.)

1. Discretionary mitigation;

○ Defendant A: Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (The following extenuating circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Detention in a workhouse;

○ Defendant B and C: Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (Amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014)

1. Suspension of execution;

○ Defendant A: Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (The following consideration has been made for more favorable circumstances among the reasons for sentencing)

1. Order of provisional payment;

1. Scope of applicable sentences under law: The scope of applicable sentences under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

(a) Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for not less than one year and six months but not more than twenty-two months;

(b) Defendant B and C: Each fine of not less than 50,00 won, but not more than 22,500,000 won;

(a) Basic crime: the crime causing bodily injury resulting from a special obstruction of performance of official duties;

【No Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] 2 years to 4 years (basic area) 2 crimes: Obstruction of Performance of Official Duties

【No Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Crimes No. 3 from June to June (Basic Field) : Interference with the execution of duties

【No Special Convicted Person】

[Scope of Recommendation] Handling multiple crimes from June to June (basic area) of imprisonment: Imprisonment with prison labor for up to five years (up to five years and three months (up to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, each violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration with no sentencing guidelines, and each violation of general traffic obstruction)

B. Defendant B and C: The sentencing criteria shall not apply to each fine.

A. Defendant A: Imprisonment with prison labor for a year and six months, and each of the crimes of this case for a year of suspended execution for a period of two years are not less complicated in light of the status, role, degree of participation, and circumstances, etc. of the Defendant in a desired bus demonstration, where the Defendant was prohibited from engaging in traffic obstruction, interference with structure entry, and failure to comply with an order of dispersion while holding a night demonstration or a non-report assembly or demonstration; and where the police officers who prevented the demonstration for the purpose of maintaining order by multiple force interfered with the performance of official duties and inflicted an injury in the process

However, with respect to the crime of injury resulting from special obstruction of performance of official duties, the Defendant did not directly use violence against the police officers, and the Defendant was holding a desired bus with the intent to attract social attention and responsibility to the issues of JJ Heavy Industries, and there are circumstances to consider the motive thereof. F, the victim of obstruction of official duties, revoked the Defendant’s complaint against the Defendant, and G police officers related to the crime of obstruction of official duties do not want to punish the Defendant. There are no criminal records of imprisonment without prison labor or any heavier punishment against the Defendant. In full view of these various circumstances revealed in the instant arguments, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, family relationship, motive and circumstance of the offense, means and consequence, etc., the execution of imprisonment is suspended only once.

B. Defendant B: Fines of two million won

The Defendant is merely a simple participant of the instant assembly and demonstration, and it seems that violence is not exercised during the process of demonstration, and other factors such as the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime specified in the present pleading, shall be determined as above, taking into account the various sentencing conditions specified in the present pleading.

C. Defendant C: Fines of three million won

The extent of the Defendant’s participation in each of the instant crimes is not limited, and it appears that the Defendant did not exercise violence in the course of demonstration, and the above punishment shall be determined by taking into account the following factors: the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the crime.

The acquittal portion

The summary of this part of the facts charged is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment above 4-B.

The above 4-B. As stated in the above 4-B, the assembly due to non-compliance with the order to dissolve the Defendants and the violation of the above Act is not established.

Judges Kim Jong-chul

Judge Park Sung-sung

Judge Maximum Financial Resources