A. Regarding the misapprehension of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant 1 was merely a simple participant of the instant assembly, and the Defendant did not know the fact that the instant assembly could interfere with road traffic by significantly deviating from the reported scope, and was voluntarily dissolved after the police’s dispersion order was issued, and the Defendant did not have any awareness of the criminal intent or illegality of ordinary traffic obstruction. ② As to the general traffic obstruction in the judgment of the court below, since the instant assembly falls under the scope of protection of freedom of assembly under the Constitution that should be approved by the State and a third party, the illegality of ordinary traffic obstruction is dismissed as it does not go against social rules. ③ As to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act of March 12, 2014, which was decided by the court below, in order to issue a noise maintenance order, the Defendant’s act of interference with general traffic as a result of measuring the background noise in accordance with the relevant laws and regulations, and thus, the Defendant did not know the degree of unfair sentencing order prior to the issuance of the noise maintenance order (the instant noise order).

B. The sentence of the lower court on the Defendant by the Prosecutor (a fine of three million won) is too unfluent and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

A. On March 12, 2014, the Defendant’s assertion that there was no intentional or unlawful perception of general traffic obstruction and that there was a violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on March 12, 2014 in the lower court’s judgment.