A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were the simple participant of the instant assembly at the time of arrival of the third class, and the vehicle had been controlled by the police due to the installation of a vehicle wall. Thus, the Defendant was at the place above.

Thus, the passage of a large road has become impossible or considerably difficult.

Therefore, the defendant's act was not the cause of traffic obstruction, and the defendant did not have the intention to commit the general traffic obstruction, and in light of the defendant's circumstances and degree of participation in the assembly of this case, the defendant cannot be held liable for the joint principal offender.

In addition, there was no intention to refuse to comply with the dispersion order, since the defendant did not directly hear the dispersion order from the head of the competent police station in a very disturbing state by mixing several noises at the time.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on the defendant's general traffic obstruction (1) The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that cause damage to land roads, etc., obstruct traffic, or significantly impede traffic by causing interference with traffic by other means, and the interference with traffic in general is just a short risk crime, if the traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic obstruction is not a real cause (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). In addition, in light of the legislative purport and provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the legislative intent of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.