If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

The Defendant, along with approximately 1,200 members of the so-called “C organization,” around 14:10 on June 16, 2012, from around 14:10 to around 14:57, the Defendant used the roads from the first place to the inn part of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Women’s Culture Mar. 16, 201, along with the auxiliary roads from around the first place to the front side of the Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Yeongdeungpo-dong 20 Lel Committee building, and obstructed the traffic by occupying the three-lanes of the auxiliary roads.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Investigation report (verification as to whether a suspect obstructs A general traffic, and report on the binding of documentary evidence and photographs);

1. 6.16. Report on the situation related to the downtown (1:20) and comprehensive status of C organizations;

1. Application of documentary evidence photographs, photographic materials, documentary evidence photographs (for example, time zone in front of the ELS building), and documentary evidence CD-related Acts and subordinate statutes;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant is taking part in the competition to resolve the problem of two vehicles, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act and thus, the illegality is excluded.

2. In light of the developments and methods leading up to occupying a road and the degree of traffic obstruction by the participants in assemblies, including the Defendant, recognized by each evidence as seen earlier, even if there exists legitimacy for the purpose of the Defendant’s act, as alleged by the Defendant and the defense counsel, the act committed by occupying the road along with the multiple participants at the time of the instant case cannot be deemed reasonable in its means and method, and there were special circumstances even if the Defendant had to perform the said act at the time, there was an urgent need to do so.

In addition, the above act is not necessarily caused by the free exercise of assembly, and it cannot be seen as a traffic obstruction to a certain extent that it is difficult to avoid it. Accordingly, the above act is a legitimate act that does not violate the social norms.