1. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the evidence duly admitted by the lower court as to the Defendant’s grounds for appeal, it is justifiable to have determined that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the violation of the Act on the Road among the facts charged in the instant case, including: (a) the Defendant’s violation of the Act on the part of March 8, 2013; (b) the obstruction of performance of official duties for each of the persons on June 10, 2013; (c) the persons on April 4, 2013; (d) the persons on April 6, 2013; and (e) June 10, 2013. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obstruction of performance of official duties and injury on each of the roads (wholly amended by Act No. 12248, Apr. 14, 2014; hereinafter the same shall apply) as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment regarding the prosecutor’s appeal, the lower court reversed the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant on the ground that there was no proof of crime regarding the part of violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration on June 16, 2012 among the facts charged against the Defendant, and the part of violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration on August 21, 2012 and on May 29, 2013, and acquitted the Defendant on the part of violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration on May 29, 2013.

In light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the legality of execution of duties, the hosting of an assembly

3. All appeals are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.