A. In full view of the circumstance and process of each assembly of this case, the time and space where the defendant participated in each assembly of this case, and the degree of interference with each transport at the time, etc. recognized by the court of first instance as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant can be recognized as having occupied each lane as stated in the judgment of the court of first instance with the intention of interfering with traffic in a successive and implicit manner with other participants in the assembly of this case. Thus, all of the above arguments by the defendant disputing this issue are rejected.

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, considering the following circumstances comprehensively, the Defendant’s motive and background leading up to the participation in each assembly of this case, traffic safety infringement and the degree of social danger resulting from the instant crime, Defendant’s age, character and conduct, environment, and circumstances after the instant crime, etc., which are similar to the instant case, there is a criminal record of a suspended sentence and a fine, and the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing is difficult to deem that the fine of one million won sentenced by the first instance court is too unreasonable, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion of this issue cannot be accepted.

3. Accordingly, we cannot accept the Defendant’s appeal under Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.