Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative purport, etc. of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration of the relevant legal principles (hereinafter “the Act”), in a case where an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road after completing lawful reports, the traffic of the road will be restricted to a certain degree. Therefore, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or it was conducted differently from the reported contents, if the reported scope is not remarkably deviating from the reported scope, the traffic of the road was obstructed thereby.

Even if there are no special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established.

However, in a case where the assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope of the initial report, or makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by interfering with road traffic due to serious violation of the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, such assembly or demonstration constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). In such a case, participating in an assembly or demonstration that considerably deviates from the scope of the initial report, or seriously interferes with road traffic by seriously violating the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, thereby making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass through by interfering with road

As a matter of course, all such participants cannot be deemed to have interfered with the general traffic, and in fact those participants are above.