All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

A. Defendant 1) In light of the background and degree of the Defendant’s participation in the assembly, there is no conspiracy or intention to interfere with traffic.

In addition, since the police had already installed a wall before the defendant attended the assembly, and the passage of the vehicle was completely controlled, there is no causal relationship between the defendant's act and traffic obstruction in the assembly after the fact.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an abstract dangerous crime, and the traffic is impossible or substantially difficult if it occurs, and the result of traffic interference does not have to be practically caused (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). However, the crime of interference with general traffic naturally cannot be established solely on the ground that the participant participated in an assembly and demonstration that substantially deviates from the reported scope and substantially interfered with traffic, but in fact, if the participant engages in a direct act that causes interference with traffic by taking part in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a serious violation of the conditions, or if it does not so, the participant is liable for the crime as a joint principal offender in light of the circumstances and degree of the participant's participation (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5280, Nov. 15, 2004).