1. In light of the legislative intent of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), where a legitimate report is completed under the Assembly and Demonstration Act and an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road, the traffic of the road shall be restricted to any extent.

Therefore, if an assembly or demonstration is conducted within the reported scope or is conducted differently from the reported contents, the reported scope is not considerably deviating from the reported scope, resulting in interference with road traffic.

Even if there are no special circumstances, the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is not established.

However, in a case where the assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope of the initial report, or makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by interfering with road traffic due to serious violation of the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, such assembly or demonstration constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). In such a case, participating in an assembly or demonstration that considerably deviates from the scope of the initial report, or seriously interferes with road traffic by seriously violating the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, thereby making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass through by interfering with road

The general traffic obstruction is not naturally established against all such participants.

In fact, a participant engaged in a direct act that causes traffic obstruction by taking part in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a serious violation of the conditions as above, or, if not, the participant’s participation process or the degree of involvement, etc., constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic in light of the details of the participant’s participation and the degree of participation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do4921, Nov. 10, 2016). 2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: the National Democratic Trade Union Federation (hereinafter “Private Union Federation”).