A. Defendants 1 of this case’s progress in accordance with the lawful prior report by the host party of the assembly of this case. Although the police notified the prior notification of prohibition on the above prior report, the notice of prohibition is unlawful as it essentially infringes on the freedom of assembly and demonstration held by participants including the Defendants, and ② the police first caused traffic obstruction by installing a parking wall to prevent the movement of participants prior to the progress of the assembly of this case.

or illegality may not be deemed to exist.

B) Even if the instant dust constitutes traffic obstruction, the Defendants merely perceived that the instant dust was done as legitimate prior report at the time as the participants in the instant assembly, and did not know that the instant dust was unlawfully committed on the grounds of deviation from the scope of report, etc., so there was no intention or illegality as to traffic obstruction to the Defendants. Therefore, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court (Defendant F) is too unreasonable and unfair. B. The prosecutor’s each sentence (Defendant F: fine of one million won and the remaining Defendants: the suspended sentence on each fine of one million won is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination:

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, whether the instant dust constitutes an unlawful traffic obstruction, or not, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, i.e., the traffic volume or location as included in the three-dimensional route.