일반교통방해
All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles are the simple participants of the instant assembly, who had already been installed a wall by the police, and had been in contact with other participants in the assembly on the road after the passage of the vehicle was completely cut off, and there was no direct act causing traffic obstruction.
In addition, in light of the circumstances and degree of involvement of the defendant, it does not fall under the case where the assembly participants can be charged as joint principal offenders.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment
(2) The lower court’s sentence on the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1,00,000) is too unreasonable.
B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant against the prosecutor (unfair form of punishment) is too unhued and unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. (1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the purpose of the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to land, road, etc. or interference with traffic by other means, and the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is not the case where traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, but the result of interference with traffic should not be practically caused.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995, 2004Do7545 delivered on October 28, 2005, etc.). However, it cannot be said that general traffic obstruction is naturally established solely on the ground that the participant participated in an assembly or demonstration that substantially deviates from the scope of the report, thereby obstructing the traffic of the road. In fact, the participant’s considerable deviation from the reported scope or serious violation of the conditions.