If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

From June 16, 2012, the Defendant held a “Korean National Countermeasure Committee on Blue Motor Vehicles”, etc. in the Women’s Culture Egymnadong, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul from around 14:05 on June 16, 2012, and took part in the “Blue House”, which was held by the “Korean People’s Countermeasures Committee on Blue Motor Vehicles,” etc., and called together, the Defendant’s participation in the “Blue House”

At around 16:19 on the same day, the Defendant participated in the above assembly and moved about 1,00 other participants in the assembly and moved about 3 lanes in front of the Speaker, and obstructed the flow of the vehicle through a viewing screen through the Central Twitter, while driving over 3 lanes in front of the Speaker.

Accordingly, the defendant conspired with other participants in the assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement of C by a witness in the fourth trial record;

1. Partial statement of the suspect examination protocol of the defendant by the prosecution;

1. Photographs (record 12 through 14, 149 through 153, 155 through 164 pages);

1. Application of communication confirmation data and Internet guidance statutes;

1. Relevant Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense. Article 185 (Selection of Fine)

1. As to the defense counsel's assertion under Article 69 (2) of the Criminal Code for the confinement of the workhouse, the defense counsel asserts that the photograph submitted as evidence is illegally collected evidence.

Article 308-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that "Any evidence collected in violation of the due process shall not be admitted as evidence." Thus, in principle, the evidence collected by the investigative agency in violation of the procedure prescribed by the Constitution and the Criminal Procedure Act shall not be admitted as evidence for conviction.

However, it does not correspond to the cases where the criminal investigation agency's procedural violation infringes on the substantial contents of due process, but rather excludes the admissibility of evidence, by preparing the procedural provisions of criminal procedure and promoting harmony between the principles of due process and the substantial truth-finding.