A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles were the simple participant of the instant assembly, and the Defendant had been under control of the vehicle with the installation of the police walls at the time of the Defendant’s arrival of the third class. Thus, the Defendant was at the place.

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

Therefore, the defendant's act was not a cause of traffic obstruction, and the defendant's participation in the assembly of this case is not jointly responsible for the principal offender in light of the circumstances and degree of participation in the assembly of this case.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the purpose of the relevant legal doctrine is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing the road, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means, and the obstruction of traffic in general is so-called abstract dangerous crimes that the traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the occurrence of traffic interference does not require actual occurrence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). In addition, in light of the provisions and legislative intent of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, in a case where a lawful report is made on the road, the scope of the reported assembly or demonstration is limited, and thus, if the report is considerably different from the reported scope.