2. In light of the following circumstances revealed through the records of the instant case, the evidence presented by the prosecutor alone, which led to a direct act causing traffic obstruction by the Defendant, by taking part in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a significant violation of the conditions regarding the instant assembly and demonstration.

It is not sufficient to recognize that a person was involved mainly in the assembly and demonstration of this case to the extent that he can be held responsible as a co-principal of a conspiracy for the obstruction of general traffic, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the prior prosecutor's above assertion on a different premise is without merit.

① Although the Defendant was the head of the national headquarters under B at the time of the instant case, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant had known in advance the scope, conditions, etc. of the instant assembly and demonstration.

② At the time of the Defendant’s participation in the assembly and demonstration of this case, police officers had already installed a wall and obstructed and controlled the daily traffic.

③ There is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, beyond simply participating in the assembly and demonstration of this case, has committed a direct act that may cause interference with traffic by leading the assembly and demonstration of this case.

3. Conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.