Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Constitutional non-conformity and the duty to acquit
Supreme Court, May 28, 2020, 2017Do8610 (judgment)
Case name: 일반교통방해·집회및시위에관한법률위반
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Is a Constitutional Court decision of unconstitutionality with a deadline for amendment an unconstitutionality decision on a criminal provision, where it declares provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act restricting assemblies near the State Council Prime Minister's residence incompatible, and what must a criminal court do in a case where those provisions were applied?
Holding
It is. The Constitutional Court's decision of 28 June 2018 was in a modified form the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act do not provide, but it is nonetheless an unconstitutionality decision on a provision of law; because Article 11(3) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act becomes a criminal provision only when combined with Article 23(i) or Article 24(v), it is an unconstitutionality decision on a criminal provision. Under the main sentence of Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act the provision loses effect retroactively, so the court must acquit, under the main sentence of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in a case in which the prosecution was brought on the application of that provision.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
결국 집시법 제11조 제3호는 집시법 제23조 제1호 또는 집시법 제24조 제5호와 결합하여 형벌에 관한 법률조항을 이루게 되므로, 위 헌법불합치결정은 형벌에 관한 법률조항에 대한 위헌결정이라 할 것이다.
Unofficial English translation
In the end, Article 11, subparagraph 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, in combination with Article 23, subparagraph 1 or Article 24, subparagraph 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, forms a statutory provision on punishment, and therefore, the above decision of nonconformity with the Constitution must be regarded as a decision of unconstitutionality with respect to a statutory provision on punishment.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원 합의부에 환송한다. 검사의 무죄 부분에 대한 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Central District Court. The prosecutor's appeal against the not guilty portion is dismissed.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
형벌에 관한 법률조항에 대하여 위헌결정이 선고된 경우 그 조항은 소급하여 효력을 상실하므로, 법원은 해당 조항이 적용되어 공소가 제기된 피고사건에 대하여 형사소송법 제325조 전단에 따라 무죄를 선고하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
Where a decision of unconstitutionality is pronounced with respect to a statutory provision on punishment, that provision loses effect retroactively, and therefore, the court must render a judgment of not guilty, pursuant to the first part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act, in the case against a defendant in which public prosecution has been instituted by applying the relevant provision.
Factors
- 헌법재판소의 헌법불합치결정은 헌법과 헌법재판소법이 규정하고 있지 않은 변형된 형태이지만 법률조항에 대한 위헌결정에 해당한다.
- 집시법 제23조 제1호는 집시법 제11조를 위반할 것을 구성요건으로 규정하고 있고
- 집시법 제24조 제5호는 집시법 제20조 제2항, 제1항과 결합하여 집시법 제11조를 구성요건으로 삼고 있다.
- 국회는 2019. 12. 31.까지 위 법률조항을 개정하지 않았다.
- 형사소송법 제325조 전단에 따라 무죄를 선고하여야 한다.
Unofficial English translation
• The decision of nonconformity with the Constitution of the Constitutional Court is a modified form not provided for in the Constitution or the Constitutional Court Act, but it constitutes a decision of unconstitutionality of a statutory provision.
• Article 23, subparagraph 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act prescribes as a constituent element the violation of Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and
• Article 24, subparagraph 5 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, in combination with Article 20, paragraph (2) and paragraph (1), takes Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act as a constituent element.
• The National Assembly did not amend the above statutory provisions by December 31, 2019.
• A judgment of not guilty must be rendered pursuant to the first part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 6. 23. 선고 2008도7562 전원합의체 판결(공2011하, 1487)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Decision 2008Do7562 decided June 23, 2011 (Gong 2011 Ha, 1487)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2009. 1. 15. 선고 2004도7111 판결(공2009상, 174), 대법원 2011. 6. 23. 선고 2008도7562 전원합의체 판결(공2011하, 1487), 헌법재판소 2004. 5. 27. 선고 2003헌가1, 2004헌가4 전원재판부 결정(헌공93, 602), 헌법재판소 2018. 6. 28. 선고 2015헌가28, 2016헌가5 전원재판부 결정(헌공261, 985)
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where a provision is declared unconstitutional only in part, must a court still acquit if the unimpaired remainder would support the same charge?
The remand judgment of the Seoul Central District Court, jointly, will show how the conviction and the sentence were recalculated once the 10 June 2014 count fell away. A further Constitutional Court decision on the amended Assembly and Demonstration Act, or an amendment to Article 47(3) of the Constitutional Court Act, would call for a fresh reading of this entry.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where a provision is declared unconstitutional only in part, must a court still acquit if the unimpaired remainder would support the same charge?” vs Independent “What effect would a legislative amendment enacted before the constitutional nonconformity deadline have had on prosecutions for earlier conduct?”
The primary reading asks whether acquittal is required when the unimpaired remainder of a partly unconstitutional provision could still support the charge. The independent reading asks what effect an earlier amendment would have had on prosecutions for prior conduct.
결국 집시법 제11조 제3호는 집시법 제23조 제1호 또는 집시법 제24조 제5호와 결합하여 형벌에 관한 법률조항을 이루게 되므로, 위 헌법불합치결정은 형벌에 관한 법률조항에 대한 위헌결정이라 할 것이다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Central District Court, in its judgment of 25 May 2017 (2017No272), applied Articles 23(i) and 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act to the part of the charge that the defendant hosted an assembly on 10 June 2014 within 100 metres of the boundary of the State Council Prime Minister's residence, a prohibited place for outdoor assemblies, and applied Articles 24(v), 20(2) and 20(1)(i) to the part that he failed to disperse promptly after an order to disperse given because he demonstrated at the prohibited place. It found both parts guilty, held that those counts and the other convictions were in concurrence under the main sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and sentenced to a single punishment.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the Constitutional Court declared Article 11(3) and the parts of Articles 23(i) and 24(v) that turn on it incompatible with the Constitution, that Parliament did not amend them by 31 December 2019, and that they therefore lost effect retroactively, so the guilty finding on 10 June 2014 could not stand. Because that count was sentenced in concurrence with the other convictions, the whole guilty portion was reversed and remanded to the Seoul Central District Court, jointly. On the defendant's grounds the Court found that including the words of the banner in the facts of the 3 May 2014 count was inappropriate but the conclusion right, and that there was no error on the 23 September 2015 obstruction count; on the prosecution's grounds it found no error in the acquittals and dismissed that appeal.
Distinguishing conditions
- A charge built on an article of the Assembly and Demonstration Act other than Article 11(3), since the Constitutional Court declared only Article 11(3) and the parts of Articles 23(i) and 24(v) resting on it incompatible.
- A case in which the incompatible provision was not applied to the charged facts, since the duty to acquit is tied to a case in which the prosecution was brought on the application of that provision.
- Conduct governed by the Assembly and Demonstration Act as amended after the deadline, since the decision applied the provisions as they stood before amendment and they continued only until 31 December 2019.
Record verification notes
Check which provision the indictment applied to each date, since the acquittal follows only where the incompatible Article 11(3) was applied. Then look at the sentence: where the reversed count was sentenced in concurrence with other convictions, the whole guilty portion falls, as it did here. Finally, confirm that the conduct fell within the period the provisions continued to govern before amendment.
From the official text
Points at issue
국무총리 공관 인근에서의 옥외집회·시위를 금지·처벌하거나 그러한 옥외집회·시위를 해산명령의 대상으로 삼아 해산명령불응죄로 처벌하는 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 규정에 대한 헌법재판소의 헌법불합치결정이 형벌에 관한 법률조항에 대한 위헌결정인지 여부(적극) / 형벌에 관한 법률조항에 대하여 위헌결정이 선고된 경우, 해당 조항이 적용되어 공소가 제기된 피고사건에 대하여 법원이 취할 조치(=무죄의 선고)
Unofficial English translation
Whether the Constitutional Court's decision of nonconformity with the Constitution on the provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act that prohibit or punish outdoor assemblies and demonstrations near the official residence of the Prime Minister, or that subject such outdoor assemblies and demonstrations to a dispersal order and punish the offense of non-compliance with a dispersal order, constitutes a decision of unconstitutionality of a statutory provision on punishment (affirmative) / Measures to be taken by the court in a case against a defendant in which public prosecution has been instituted by applying the relevant provision, where a decision of unconstitutionality is pronounced with respect to a statutory provision on punishment (= a judgment of not guilty)
Summary of the holding
헌법재판소는 2018. 6. 28. “집회 및 시위에 관한 법률(2007. 5. 11. 법률 제8424호로 전부 개정된 것, 이하 ‘집시법’이라 한다) 제11조 제3호, 제23조 제1호 중 제11조 제3호에 관한 부분, 제24조 제5호 중 제20조 제2항 가운데 ‘제11조 제3호를 위반한 집회 또는 시위’에 관한 부분은 헌법에 합치되지 아니한다.”, “위 법률조항들은 2019. 12. 31.을 시한으로 개정될 때까지 계속 적용한다.”라는 헌법불합치결정을 선고하였고(2015헌가28, 2016헌가5 전원재판부 결정), 국회는 2019. 12. 31.까지 위 법률조항을 개정하지 않았다. 헌법재판소의 헌법불합치결정은 헌법과 헌법재판소법이 규정하고 있지 않은 변형된 형태이지만 법률조항에 대한 위헌결정에 해당한다. 집시법 제23조 제1호는 집시법 제11조를 위반할 것을 구성요건으로 규정하고 있고, 집시법 제24조 제5호는 집시법 제20조 제2항, 제1항과 결합하여 집시법 제11조를 구성요건으로 삼고 있다. 결국 집시법 제11조 제3호는 집시법 제23조 제1호 또는 집시법 제24조 제5호와 결합하여 형벌에 관한 법률조항을 이루게 되므로, 위 헌법불합치결정은 형벌에 관한 법률조항에 대한 위헌결정이라 할 것이다. 그리고 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항 본문에 따라 형벌에 관한 법률조항에 대하여 위헌결정이 선고된 경우 그 조항은 소급하여 효력을 상실하므로, 법원은 해당 조항이 적용되어 공소가 제기된 피고사건에 대하여 형사소송법 제325조 전단에 따라 무죄를 선고하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울중앙지방법원 합의부에 환송한다. 검사의 무죄 부분에 대한 상고를 기각한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and this portion of the case is remanded to the collegiate panel of the Seoul Central District Court. The prosecutor's appeal against the not guilty portion is dismissed.
Provisions referred to
집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제11조 제3호, 제20조 제1항, 제2항, 제23조 제1호, 제24조 제5호, 헌법재판소법 제47조 제3항, 형사소송법 제325조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger