A. The Defendant involved in the assembly on August 27, 201 did not have participated in the above assembly at the same time.

B. On May 19, 2012, the Defendant’s act related to the assembly on May 19, 2012 does not constitute traffic obstruction. Since the above assembly is a legitimate assembly, the Defendant, who is merely a simple participant, was unaware of the permissible scope of the above reported assembly, leading to the mistake of law under Article 16 of the Criminal Act, as there were justifiable grounds for such mistake.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below related to the assembly of August 27, 201, in particular, according to the description and image of the person who held the assembly demonstration (the investigation record 156-158 pages), the defendant was found to have obstructed the traffic of the vehicle by moving along with other participants at the assembly after the completion of the assembly held on August 27, 2011 (the defendant asserts that the above investigation record cannot be regarded as the same person, but the above two cannot be seen as the same person). Accordingly, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. On May 19, 2012, a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of which general public’s legal interest is the protection of traffic safety, and its purpose is to punish all acts making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass by causing damage to land, road, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means. On the other hand, in a case where an assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the originally reported scope, or seriously violates the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, thereby making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass by interfering with road traffic, the general traffic obstruction is established. (2) In this case, the general traffic obstruction is duly adopted by the lower court.