1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment as to the violation of the Road Traffic Act in light of the evidence duly admitted, the lower court is justifiable to have found the Defendant guilty of violating the Road Traffic Act among the facts charged in the instant case on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the concept of road under the Road Traffic Act, the danger and intent of traffic obstruction, and the scope of judgment by the appellate court, without making any necessary deliberation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. Reviewing the record on the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the defendant appealed against the first conviction portion, but did not submit a written reason for appeal within the period for submission of the written reason for appeal, and did not state the reason for appeal in the petition of appeal, and the court below dismissed the defendant's appeal by decision.

In such a case, the lower court’s assertion that there was an error of finding facts in violation of logical and empirical rules or of misapprehending the legal doctrine on contingent assemblies and justifiable acts is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

3. According to Article 383 subparag. 4 of the Criminal Procedure Act as to the grounds for an unfair appeal of sentencing, only in the case where death penalty, life imprisonment, or imprisonment with or without prison labor for more than ten years is declared, an appeal based on unfair sentencing is permitted. As such, the argument that the Defendant’s punishment is too unreasonable is not a legitimate ground for appeal.

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.