1. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the charge of interference with ordinary traffic on June 16, 2012 is as follows; and the Defendant is as follows.

6. 16. 16. 16: At around 20 20 : Other participants participating in a 's conference on walking', which is held by the Tranchisp Measures Committee, and the passage of the road in collusion with other participants by occupying and driving a lane prior to the front of the viewing field in the front of the viewing field in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below maintained the judgment of the court of first instance which acquitted the above charges on the grounds that it cannot be deemed that the defendant interfered with the traffic of the land and thus makes it impossible or considerably difficult for him to pass through the road.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. The purpose of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, road, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means, as an offense protecting the legal interest of the general public’s traffic safety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1926, Jul. 10, 2014). Moreover, interference with general traffic is an abstract dangerous crime, and thus, traffic is impossible or considerably difficult if it falls under the so-called abstract dangerous crime, and the result of interference with traffic does not have to be practically caused (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4662, Dec. 14, 2007).

B. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, i.e., the defendant's participation in the "Gameing competition", i.e., the defendant occupied and driven along the other participants on June 16, 2012, by the above high-priced vehicle separated from the Seodaemun-gu high-speed vehicle on June 16, 2012, along with the other participants. The above high-priced vehicle is not installed only on the part crossing between the railroad and the roadway, and the other parts are installed separately from the roadway (the above part is divided into the yellow-gu roadway). However, in light of the fact that the participants of the meeting of about 500 persons, including the defendant, were unable to reach the intersection of the vehicle on June 16, 2012 at the high-speed road or the vehicle that had been installed on the front and rear road without the above high-priced vehicle traffic flow, and the vehicle's passage on the front and rear road at the high-speed speed of the defendant 20 to 16:24.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the grounds stated in its reasoning. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on general traffic obstruction, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below not guilty should be reversed. Since the part which the court below found guilty and not guilty guilty are concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, one punishment should be imposed. Thus, the whole judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent

Justices shall award and decoration.

Justices Kim Chang-suk

Justices Cho Jong-hee