In addition, other participants in the assembly interfere with the general traffic.

In light of the degree of involvement of the Defendants in the process of participation, the Defendants constitute a joint principal offender of the conspiracy of interference with general traffic.

2. In light of the circumstances stated in its holding, the lower court determined that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is difficult to view the Defendants’ act related to the assembly on the day of the instant case as a direct act causing traffic obstruction by significantly deviating from the scope of the report on assembly and demonstration, and it is difficult to view that the Defendants’ act constitutes a case where the Defendants can be held accountable as a joint principal offender for the crime of interference with general traffic, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it differently.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning of the lower court in light of the evidence and relevant legal doctrine examined by the lower court (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do9202, Sept. 21, 2017), the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable, and there is no error by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting

3. The appeal by the prosecutor of the conclusion is without merit, and is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.