As such, we concluded that a seized article is closely related to a petitioner's right to defense and right to property, and therefore, its properties, conditions, and form at the time of seizure should be kept intact until the final ruling is reached. Neglecting the Act of Obstructing Assemblies by Management We concluded that it was a violation of freedom of assembly and demonstration for the police to neglect the management's act of obstructing the petitioner's assembly in front of the company's main entrance by preoccupying the space and recommended on March 28 that the and provide human rights education to the police station's personnel. The management was found to have preoccupied the space in front of the company's main entrance by giving notification for the holding of an assembly every day all year round since 2000, but it turned out that the management actually only held assemblies for a limited number of days. The management was repeatedly giving notification for holding an assembly of 100 for 24 hours every day on the entire blocks to the right and left of the company's main entrance around the time when the petitioner submitted the petition. However, in actuality, only five or six employees on the side of the management and subcontract workers wearing sashes marked with slogans were hovering around the area and drove away those trying to hold an assembly, saying that the space was already reserved by the management. After June 2016, when the court issued a temporary dispositional order to the management not to obstruct assemblies, the management hindered assemblies by blocking access to assembly locations. The police, even when it was reported, did not take proper steps to rectify the situation. The management filed a suit against the petitioner for obstructing its assemblies for which notification was given in advance. In January 2018, the court ruled that the management's assemblies held around-the-clock by stationing its employees and subcontract workers, though notified of in advance, appear to be closer to an act of standing guard and thus cannot be deemed worthy of being protected at the expense of constraining the freedom to select the assembly location, which is guaranteed in the Constitution, of the petitioner who intends to select the same location for its connection with the assembly. As such, we concluded that the respective police station violated the freedom of assembly National Human Rights Commission of Korea Annual Report 2018 89 Part 2 | Commission's Major Activities chief of the police station in charge come up with measures to protect the freedom of assembly