A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles (1) The Defendant was a simple participant, not the organizer of the instant assembly, and was aware that the Defendant was engaged in a lawful operation according to the route reported by D, and thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to interfere with traffic.

shall not be effective.

(2) At the time of the participants in the assembly such as the Defendant, etc., the police already controlled the traffic by installing a parking wall, etc., and there was no vehicle traffic flow. Thus, the traffic of the vehicle was obstructed by the act of the participants in the assembly such as the Defendant, etc.

shall not be required to do so.

(3) The Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act, as it exercises fundamental rights based on the freedom of assembly guaranteed by the Constitution.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the purpose of the relevant legal principles is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means, and the obstruction of traffic in general is so-called abstract dangerous crimes that the traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic interference does not necessarily require actual occurrence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). In addition, in light of the provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and the legislative intent of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, in a case where a lawful report is made on the road, there is no restriction on the road traffic, and thus, it has to be conducted within the scope of the reported report.