On May 19, 2012, from around 16:10 to 17:25, the Defendant participated in the 19th National Assembly on May 19, 201, which was held by “C Committee”, etc. in the Seoul Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Automatic Automatic.

After the completion of the above 17:25 on the same day, the Defendant moved along with approximately 3,50 participants in other assemblies with about 17:25 on the same day to the front of the door of sublime, Bank of Korea street, and Gurogate, and continued to move in the front of the 18:15 on the same day at around 18:15, in a way that the 10-lanes of the road are 19:10 on the same day, thereby interfering with the traffic of vehicles.

Accordingly, the defendant conspired with other participants in the assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Data concerning the photograph of the assembly or demonstration organizer;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report information situation;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act and Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines, and the selection of fines;

1. A fine of 700,000 won to be suspended;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (in cases of conversion of KRW 50,000 per day) of the Criminal Act into a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion regarding Article 59 (1) of the suspended sentence (see, e.g., the first offense, the process of participation in the assembly, the degree of participation, etc.) of the Criminal Act and the defendant's defense counsel's assertion that the act of this case was a justifiable act. However, even if the defendant's purpose of the defendant's act is justifiable, it cannot be deemed that the act of causing traffic obstruction by occupying the road along with multiple participants at the time of the instant case's assembly, and there

The defendant's act does not constitute a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, as it does not seem to have any other means and method against the defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.