A. (1) On April 18, 2015, there was no fact that he/she participated in the demonstration or progress described in the facts charged on the date and time related to the crime, and did not appear on the road.

The demonstration cost has already been occupied by a road due to his or her his or her Ginsan as he or she entered the police bus to stop, and only the defendant has entered the police bus to stop.

2) The participation in the assembly related to the crime on May 1, 2015 is consistent. However, since the photograph submitted by the prosecutor cannot be confirmed as to whether the defendant is a defendant, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that this part of the facts charged was proved.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court related to the crime committed on April 18, 2015, as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant is fully aware of the fact that the Defendant occupied a lane, such as the epiculation (the third class) adjacent to the epict of light (the third class) along with other participants in the assembly as indicated in the facts charged, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation in this part is without merit.

A) According to the photographs taken on the day of the instant case, it is recognized that the Defendant used the color flag as soon as possible on April 18, 2015, and was on the road presumed to be Sejong, and that there was a police bus parked on the north side of the luminous plaza around around 19:13 on the same day; on the same day, around 19:14 on the same day, the police bus parked on the north side of the luminous square; on the one hand, around 19:14 on the police bus, it was sent back to the intersection of the luminous door through the shoulder window of the police bus at around 21:58 on the same day; on the other day, the Defendant was on the nearby road at around 22:25 on the same day, along with other participants of the assembly.

Considering the above behavior and appearance at the defendant's site, the defendant's assertion that he entered the police bus to stop can be accepted.