일반교통방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant was present at a metal labor union meeting held in the forest of the citizens of Yang Jae-dong Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, from May 15, 2013 to 15:00, and the participants of the meeting were driving along the lane in front of the headquarters of Hyundai Motor. On the same day, from 16:30 to 18:36, the Defendant held a meeting at three lanes in front of the headquarters of Hyundai Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “instant assembly place”). However, the above assembly and its progress were legally reported, and the police convened within the wall and the protective wall installed in advance to maintain order, so it does not interfere with traffic by significantly deviating from the scope of the report.
B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.
2. Judgment on misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles
A. The summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) from May 15, 2013 to 16:05, the Defendant participated in the 2,50 members of the Korean Metal Trade Union to the “Non-regular Metal Trade Union Resolution Meeting” on May 15, 2013, along with 2,50 members of the Korean Metal Trade Union’s Federation.
After the completion of the above assembly, the Defendant occupied a lane for about 126 minutes from around 16:30 to 18:36, while trying to move ahead of the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Head Office in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, with approximately 2,500 participants in other assemblies, and occupied the lanes from 16:30 to 18:36 to moving ahead of the Hyundai Motor Vehicle Head Office.
Accordingly, the defendant conspired with other participants in the assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in the lower judgment.
C. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.
1. The burden of proof for the criminal facts prosecuted in the criminal trial is against the public prosecutor.