beta
Text
The appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, on the grounds indicated in its reasoning, the lower court maintained the first instance court’s judgment convicting the Defendant of the charge of violating Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, on the ground that the “place within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly and Assembly building” where an outdoor assembly or demonstration is prohibited pursuant to Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act refers to a place within 100 meters from the boundary of the National Assembly and Assembly building.
The judgment below
Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, in light of the relevant legal principles, the lower court’s measures are justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on interpretation of Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, contrary to
2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court acknowledged facts as indicated in its reasoning by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence, and maintained the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of the charge of the crime of non-compliance with the dispersion order, on the ground that the assembly participating on May 10, 2012 obviously resulted in a direct risk to the legal interests of others or public peace
The judgment below
Examining the evidence duly adopted by the court of first instance and the relevant legal principles, the court below’s measures are just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles regarding the crime of non-compliance with the dispersion order, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.
3. Examining the ground of appeal No. 3 in light of the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below is justified in maintaining the first instance court's judgment which found the defendant guilty of the charge of general traffic obstruction for the reasons as stated in its holding.