76 Commission's Major Activities ● Restriction of one-man protest in front of the U.S. Embassy On 30 October, the Commission concluded that the restriction placed on a one-man protest staged in front of the U.S. Embassy to protect the diplomatic office and pedestrian traffic is an infringement of the freedom of expression. It thus recommended the police superintendent overseeing the jurisdiction to guarantee such protests to the extent that they don’t hinder pedestrian traffic. The complainant argued that the police kept him from staging a one-man, anti-THAAD protest on the sidewalk in front of the U.S. Embassy. The police argued that the complainant was in fact staging an illegal rally as he was acting with other members of his organization, and that it was exercising its official duty in accordance with the Act on the Performance of Duties by Police Officers given the possibility that the one-man protest could stimulate other organizations. The police also argued that, based on the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, it has the obligation to protect foreign diplomatic offices and that restricting the complainant’s protest to be staged 15 meters away from the Embassy was a minimal necessary action. An investigation found that the gathering was hardly an illegal rally because other members of the complainant’s organization were just walking with him and stopping momentarily to take some videos. Also, there was no presence of unlawful acts such as force, deception, or dissemination of false information to counter public safety or order, nor was there any harm done to the Embassy area or its employees. Thus, the police restriction of the protest cannot be seen as justifiable execution of its official duty. The police also argued that it had allowed the complainant to protest 15 meters away from the target location, and thus the complainant was able to achieve his purpose. However, considering that the protest was designed to inform the public that the THAAD deployment infringes upon the people’s right to peaceful survival guaranteed under the Constitution and that the complainant wanted to highlight the violation of the ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty by symbolically protesting in front of the U.S. Embassy gate, the Commission concluded that the police claim is not justifiable. That said, the Commission acknowledged that serious pedestrian traffic congestions could be caused by the placement of a large number of force to secure the area if one-man protests were allowed without restrictions. Taking this into consideration, the Commission recommended the