A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, as a simple participant in an assembly, did not have any intention to obstruct traffic as a mere participant in an assembly, and did not invite other participants in an assembly to commit general traffic obstruction.

B) Prior to the Defendant’s participation in the assembly, police already installed a parking wall on the road, and the traffic on the road has been obstructed by that wall, so it does not interfere with traffic due to the Defendant’s participation in the assembly.

C) Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in finding facts.

2) In the misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant’s participation in the assembly does not constitute “other methods” as the form of an act of interference with general traffic.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

3) The sentence (one million won penalty) imposed by the lower court against the Defendant is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below on the defendant (one million won in penalty) is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same intent as the part of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts.

In full view of each of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court: (a) recognized that the Defendant’s participation in the assembly could cause interference with traffic; (b) participated in the assembly; and (c) shared a functional act related to traffic interference with other participants in the assembly in collusion.

Accordingly, the defendant's assertion was rejected.

2) In addition, the lower court also asserted that the Defendant had the same purport as the part that there was no causal relation between the Defendant’s participation in the assembly and the result of traffic obstruction, among the aforementioned factual errors.

As to this, the court below shall take full account of the circumstances in its reasoning, and the assembly of the defendant's participation.