A. Legal principles (Defendant A) In this case, the case is a legitimate act since it was punished in a way that unfairly prevents an assembly to commemorate the former president from departing from the public authority.

B. Fact-finding (defendant D) The Defendant had a view of the Defendant during the process of leading up to the misunderstanding of the candlelight assembly while driving ahead of it, and the Defendant was given a photograph while demanding the police to compensate for it, and there was no fact that the Defendant participated in the assembly, and there was no fact that the Defendant occupied another participant in the demonstration with another participant in the demonstration.

C. The respective sentence of the lower court (the Defendant’s each fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, it is recognized that participants in assemblies, including the Defendant, occupy and use the road in the manner of demonstration by occupying the entire lane of the Defendant, and considering the degree of traffic obstruction in this case, the cause, purpose, and progress of traffic obstruction occurrence, etc., the assembly and demonstration in this case can be deemed as impeding road traffic beyond the reported scope, and it cannot be deemed as a justifiable act that does not violate the social rules, and the above argument by the Defendant is without merit.

B. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding Defendant D’s assertion of mistake of facts, especially the statement and photograph by police officers J which arrested Defendant as a flagrant offender, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant actively participated in the demonstration and interfered with the traffic of the large-scale can be interfered with by participating in the candlelight assembly of this case before the Defendant is arrested as a flagrant offender by actively participating in the demonstration in collusion with other participants of the demonstration, such as attempting to fight the police officers during the demonstration. Thus, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

(c).