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

At around 14:00 on December 28, 2013, the Defendant participated and gathered with 24,000 members, etc. of the D Organization, etc. at the 110 Seoul Spare (hereinafter referred to as “D organization”) as Class C of Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and received text messages to move from the headquarters of the E-EU to the luminous room at around 17:00 on the same day, the Defendant started to move 5,000 members from the participants of the assembly to the luminous square, and came to move to the 149 Blue Spare as Class C, and came to move to the 149 Blue Spare. From 16:50 on the same day to 19:35 on the same day, the Defendant occupied the two direction with the above 5,00 persons.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with the above participants in the assembly to occupy the road, thereby obstructing the passage of the vehicle, such as making it impossible to pass the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Data concerning the photograph of the assembly or demonstration organizer;

1. Application of the statutes governing a copy of assembly report;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the selection of penalties;

1. Articles 70 and 69(2) of the former Criminal Act (amended by Act No. 12575, May 14, 2014).

1. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the provisional payment order has the same history of having been sentenced to criminal punishment for violating the Assembly and Demonstration Act on the same kind of general traffic obstruction as this case, and it is difficult to regard the defendant as the chief of the organization department of the Seoul District Headquarters of the E Trade Union only as the simple

However, this case was punished by deviating from the scope of the report after the first report was held, and there is no evidence that the defendant was leading in the process.

The punishment shall be determined by taking into account the circumstances leading to the instant case, the defendant's occupation and economic situation, and the sentencing of the same kind of case.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.