A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles did not interfere with traffic on the land in collusion with other participants in the assembly.

(2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of one million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The public offering, which is a requirement for the establishment of a joint principal offender to determine the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, does not necessarily require that the public offering should be made explicitly prior to the crime, and all of them should not be

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the assembly was held at the time and place of the General Assembly of the Korean Democratic Workers' Union (hereinafter referred to as the "General Assembly") as stated in this judgment of the court below. At the time, the above assembly was held more than 5,500 persons, and the defendant exceeded the reported assembly place than reported. The defendant also occupied part of the vehicle with other participants. At the time of the meeting, the defendant exceeded the assembly place reported by the chief of the Seoul Southern Dongdaemun Police Station at the time of the meeting and notified the participants of the demand for dissolution and dissolution order, but the participants continued to occupy the above lane, continued to hold the assembly, and the defendant was the chief of the D office of the Nowon-gu General.

According to the above facts of recognition, it can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant conspireds with other participants in other assemblies in order, impliedly, and interferes with the traffic of the land, such as the statement in the decision of the court below, so the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is without merit.

B. The fact that the Defendant had been punished for the same kind of crime, the Defendant committed the instant crime during the period of suspension of execution, etc., and there are extenuating circumstances, such as the circumstance leading to the instant crime, and the time that obstructed traffic.