1. The summary of the facts charged of this case is that the defendant participated in the National Countermeasure Meeting against the full import of U.S. beef from Mad Cow Disease (hereinafter “National Countermeasure Meeting”) around July 26, 2008, which was organized by the “National Countermeasure Meeting against the import of U.S. beef from Mad Cow Disease” (hereinafter “the Assembly of this case”), and, from around 3,000 persons who participated in the above assembly until around 23:40 on the same day, the defendant occupied the roadways in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, and occupied the roadways, such as the street, 1 log, rodes, the front day of the door, and the front day of the door, and led the vehicle to be unable to pass by the demonstration, thereby obstructing the vehicle traffic in collusion with the above participants of the assembly.

2. The court below stated that the defendant's participation in the above assembly was a situation where the road is already obstructed. However, it is difficult to conclude that the installation of a vehicle wall and traffic control by the police was a result of the defendant's participation in the assembly after the defendant participated in the assembly, because the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is not enough to confirm the specific aspects of the assembly, demonstration, the progress of the demonstration, and the installation of a vehicle wall by the police, etc. on the day of this case. Considering the circumstances of the defendant's participation, the time of arrival, the status of the mere participant, etc., the defendant conspired to interfere with traffic through an implied communication with other participants of the assembly, or had the intention to deliberate on the part

For the reason that the defendant could not be appointed, the defendant conspired with other participants in demonstration to interfere with road traffic.

Considering that it cannot be seen, the judgment of the first instance, which found the Defendant guilty of interference with general traffic, was reversed, and the Defendant was acquitted.

3. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the lower court for the following reasons.

(a) Interference with general traffic safety under Article 185 of the Criminal Act shall be conducted by the general public;