Supreme Court: "Spontaneous Protest by Reported Assembly Participants Is Not an Unreported Assembly"

Acquittal Confirmed for Union Official on Charges of Organizing Unreported Assembly
"Prosecutor's Lack of Proof on Event Circumstances"

A union official who protested at a police station after union members participating in a reported rally were arrested was acquitted of charges of organizing an unreported rally.

Although the rally took place at a location considerably distant from the originally reported venue, the attire of the participating union members and the banners used were identical to those of the prior rally, making it impossible to rule out the possibility that the rally was spontaneous or impromptu. Furthermore, the prosecution failed to sufficiently prove that the rally was not an extension of the previously reported rally.

Supreme Court, Seocho-dong, Seoul.

According to the legal community on the 10th, the Supreme Court’s Second Division (Presiding Justice Cheon Dae-yeop) upheld the lower court’s ruling in the appeal trial of Kim, a regional head of a local branch of the Cargo Solidarity Headquarters of the Korean Public Service and Transport Workers' Union (KPTU), who was indicted for violating participant compliance requirements under the Assembly and Demonstration Act and for organizing an unreported outdoor rally. The court recognized Kim’s guilt for violating compliance requirements, sentencing him to four months in prison with a one-year probation, but confirmed the acquittal on the charge of organizing an unreported outdoor rally.

The court explained the reason for dismissing the prosecution’s appeal, stating, "There was no error in the lower court’s judgment by failing to conduct necessary investigations, violating the rules of logic and experience, exceeding the limits of free evaluation of evidence, or misinterpreting the legal principles concerning the 'organizing' of outdoor rallies as stipulated in the Assembly and Demonstration Act." It also stated the reason for dismissing Kim’s appeal, saying, "There was no error in the lower court’s interpretation of the legal principles regarding 'equipment,' 'carrying,' and 'use' as defined in Article 16, Paragraph 4, Subparagraph 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act."

The A branch under the regional headquarters of the union led by Kim filed a rally report to hold an outdoor rally at the main gate parking lot of a factory in Gunsan, Jeonbuk, from April 26 to May 22, 2021, demanding the withdrawal of unfair contract terminations against some union members. On May 8, 2021, while holding a rally for the general strike departure ceremony with the union’s deputy branch head and branch president, Kim was indicted for violating rally compliance requirements by spreading a hazardous substance, thinner, on the ground and throwing thinner containers as several cargo trucks entered the factory for delivery.

Additionally, Kim was charged with organizing an unreported rally when 20 union members, along with him, went to a police station located 15 km away from the rally site to protest after three union members who had blocked the factory gate were arrested on the spot by the police. The prosecution indicted Kim, asserting that he organized the rally by chanting slogans demanding the release of the arrested union members using a microphone and loudspeaker.

The first trial court found Kim guilty on both charges and sentenced him to six months in prison with a two-year probation. The deputy branch head and branch president, who were also indicted, were fined 500,000 KRW and 300,000 KRW respectively.

Kim appealed the first trial verdict. The second trial court agreed with the first court’s judgment that thinner qualifies as a type of 'equipment' that threatens others’ lives or bodily safety under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, thus constituting a violation of participant compliance requirements. However, it found it difficult to recognize the charge of organizing an unreported rally, overturned the first trial’s ruling, and reduced the sentence to four months in prison with a one-year probation.

The court stated, "There is insufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant organized an outdoor rally without submitting a report to the competent police chief, due to lack of proof regarding whether the unreported rally was distinct from the reported rally or whether it was pre-discussed and prepared."

The court noted, "The distance of approximately 15 km between the reported rally site and the unreported rally site on the same day, the uniform attire of participants at the unreported rally, the considerable number of union members attending and their well-organized coordination, and the preparation of banners and microphones raise some suspicion about the spontaneity or impulsiveness of the unreported rally."

It continued, "However, the prosecution did not provide any evidence regarding how the unreported rally was conducted. Therefore, the possibility that the unreported rally was spontaneous or impromptu, as claimed by the defendant, cannot be excluded. Even if it was not, it can be considered an extension of the reported rally."

If the rally was an extension of the reported rally, it would exceed the scope of the reported rally, but it would not be considered an unreported rally.

The court also stated, "Although it is acknowledged that the defendant was the regional head at the time and spoke holding a microphone at the unreported rally, these facts alone cannot conclusively establish that he organized the unreported rally. The defendant was not the organizer of the reported rally, and there is no evidence confirming that the unreported rally was led by him. It is also unknown whether he was the sole or highest-ranking official among the participants of the unreported rally."

The Supreme Court also found no problem with the second trial court’s judgment.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.