Therefore, even if the defendant was temporarily on the roadway, he is responsible as a co-principal of general traffic obstruction with other participants.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant on the ground that there is a lack of evidence to prove a crime as to the fact that the defendant conspired with other participants in the assembly and interfered with traffic by occupying the roadway, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone, based on the following circumstances acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, was insufficient to recognize that the Defendant conspired with other participants in the demonstration site to occupy the roadway near the scene of the demonstration and interfered with traffic without reasonable doubt.

1) According to the photographs and videos taken by the Defendant at the time, it seems that there is no time that the Defendant had been placed on the roadway near the scene of the instant demonstration. 2) The aforementioned photographs and videos do not seem to have been typical behavior or character that is likely to be seen as a participant in the demonstration or assembly, such as wearing a shoulder belt with the Defendant outside of relief, or carrying the clocks, flagpoles, or flick cards.

3 In the event that the vehicle has already been occupied by the participants of the assembly, the defendant participated in the demonstration with the combination of participants in the assembly who occupy the above roadway, in order or implied opinion, by temporarily leaving the roadway and examining the surroundings.

It is concluded that there was a functional control over traffic obstruction.