A. Regarding the Defendant’s general traffic obstruction, the Defendant did not have any intention to obstruct traffic as a mere participant in an assembly and did not have any awareness of illegality.

With regard to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), the Defendant did not have any intention on the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and did not have any awareness that his act was illegal.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, which erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of judgment

B. In light of the overall circumstances of the case at issue by the prosecutor, the sentence imposed by the court below (the suspended sentence: a fine of 1.5 million won) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion that an act of misunderstanding that one’s own act under Article 16 of the relevant legal principles does not constitute a crime under the law does not mean a simple legal site, but it is generally a crime, but it is recognized that it does not constitute a crime under the law in its special circumstances, and there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding that it does not constitute a crime (Supreme Court Decision 99Do5026 Decided June 29, 2001). Whether there exists a justifiable reason should be determined depending on whether the act was not aware of the illegality of one’s own act as a result of failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or inquiries, on the ground that there was a opportunity to know the illegality of one’s own act if the act was made with his intellectual ability to avoid it (Supreme Court Decision 9Do5026 Decided March 24, 2006).