The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) is legitimate in order to express the opinion to urge the abolition of the disability rating system, which is the one’s pledge at the time and place specified in the facts charged in the instant case, and to legally hold a “meeting” as provided by the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly Act”) in order to prepare emergency measures against disability victims and to urge the implementation of activity support 24 hours campaign.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have a duty to make a prior report on the instant reporters’ visit under Article 6 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the instant reporters’ visit, which does not constitute outdoor assemblies, does not constitute the subject of dispersion order under Article 20 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

2. Determination:

A. The purpose of the Assembly and Demonstration Act is to ensure the harmony between the guarantee of the right to assembly and demonstration and the public peace and order by guaranteeing a legitimate assembly and demonstration as much as possible and protecting citizens from unlawful demonstration (Article 1). In addition, the concept of the assembly itself does not provide any definition as to the demonstration itself, but it is defined that with respect to a demonstration, it means an act that affects the opinions of many unspecified persons, such as roads, squares, parks, etc., and by showing their power or power, and that an outdoor assembly is guaranteed and regulated under Article 3 below.

In light of the contents and purport of the above provisions of the law at the time, an assembly subject to guarantee and regulation under the above law refers to a temporary gathering of a specific or unspecified number of people to a certain place under the purpose of externally expressing an opinion by forming a common opinion.

b) the Commission;