When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On November 14, 2015, the Defendant participated in a meeting of the Korean War Veterans Association C, which was held in Seoul Sejong, etc. on November 14, 2015.

1. On November 14, 2015, the Defendant participated in the above assembly on the roads front of his hotel in Jung-gu, Seoul at around 15:00 to 18:00, and on the same day, at around 16:01, the Defendant received the third dispersion order issued by the head of the Seoul Southern-gu Police Station (the Chief of Security Station (the Chief of Security Station) who is the police station having jurisdiction over the assembly, from around 16:01, and was ordered to dissolve four times in total until 16:31 of the same day, the Defendant refused to comply with the order and was not dissolved.

2. The Defendant: (a) went away from the assembly place reported at the time and place specified in the above 1. Paragraph (1) above; (b) occupied a road front line; and (c) occupied a general road by holding an assembly; and (d) thereby interfered with the traffic of the land along which the vehicle passes.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A report on internal investigation (Attachment of time data verifying the nature of photographs on the website of a sub-council for maintenance of the E;

1. On-site photographs (on-site photographs, roadsides, etc.) (on-site 12);

1. Application of the Act and subordinate statutes to field recording CDs (netly 17);

1. Article 24 subparagraph 5 of the Act on the Selective Assembly and Demonstration against Criminal Facts, Articles 20 and 20 (2) of the Act on the Selective Assembly and Demonstration ( point of non-compliance with an order of dissolution), Article 185 of the Criminal Act ( point of interference with general traffic), the selection of fines;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the defendant's act is a justifiable act that does not violate social rules, and thus the illegality is excluded.

However, in light of the background, content, means, and method of the instant crime, and the degree of traffic obstruction revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the Defendant’s act is reasonable in terms of the means and method, or legal protection.