A. Defendant’s mistake of facts, misapprehension of legal principles, 1) As to the obstruction of general traffic, an assembly or demonstration in which the Defendant participated was considerably deviates from the reported scope, or made it impossible or considerably difficult to pass road traffic.

There is no circumstance to consider.

2) With regard to interference with the performance of official duties, the police assigned the forces around the front of the king with a view to preventing any saves related to a pair of motor vehicles, not with a view to maintaining order, but with a view to preventing any saves related to a pair of motor vehicles

The defendant started the arrest of the police at the same time as "the sending country" to the participants in the assembly at the same time, and the participants in the assembly resist the police at resistance, and there is a conflict between the participants in the assembly at the time of resistance to the police, and the participants in the assembly did not interfere with the police due to the defendant's external invasion.

3) As to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) did not allow a report on the premise that the night assembly or demonstration is not originally prohibited.

However, the Constitutional Court ruled that the prohibition of assembly or demonstration is unconstitutional only because it takes place at night.

Therefore, punishing the defendant on the ground of non-report is contrary to the purport of the Constitutional Court's decision, and it is against the principle of responsibility that it is impossible to report on night assemblies or demonstrations.

The defendant did not invite people who participated in the pan-national competition and demonstration.

B. The sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment, and two years of suspended execution) declared by the lower court by both parties to the unfair sentencing is too heavy or is too heavy (the Defendant).

2. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court’s judgment on the point of obstructing general traffic and obstructing the performance of official duties.