If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is a non-governmental person who performs the "C (one name: D) activity."

On February 25, 2014, at around 15:30, the Defendant participated in the “Resolution for the People’s Frequency” conference held at the Seoul square, which was held at around 17:40 on the same day. At around 17:40 on the same day, the Defendant was traveling along with approximately 2,00 participants at other assemblies on the ground of “Seoul square” as “Seoul Open Space” (Seoul Open Space). On the same day from around 18:05 to around 18:30 on the same day, the Defendant was driving along with the front line (4-5 lanes) prior to the moving direction (8 lanes). In short, the Defendant took a small number of unspecified flas cards indicating “E restriction and Fjin” into two hand, and took out relief in a way other than an irregular manner, thereby hindering the passage of many and unspecified vehicles.

Accordingly, the Defendant conspired with other participants in the assembly and interfered with the traffic on land by other means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. Information status report, report on assembly, and report on internal investigation (verification of the place of assembly of internal victims);

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, investigation reports (influoric video analysis and suspect identification) by each closure of a course;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts. Article 185 (Selection of Punishment of Fines)

1. The defendant's argument regarding Article 70 (1) and Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Act on the confinement in the Nowon-gu Station asserts that at the time of participation in the assembly, the police had already obstructed the road in front of the luminous road by his career and bus, and thus, the vehicle's participation in the demonstration did not cause a danger of traffic obstruction.

Comprehensively taking account of each evidence in the judgment, it is reported that the demonstration was conducted by taking advantage of the delivery or separately consulted the progress of the demonstration, and the police, as above, conflict with the opposite assembly of the remuneration organization, while the scope of the demonstration reported by the participants does not exceed the scope of the demonstration.