The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly admitted by the first instance court, which maintained the reasoning, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of aiding and abetting criminals and the crime of conspiracy, as alleged in the grounds of appeal, while failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the aforementioned legal doctrine.

In the lower judgment, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the last means of a notice of prohibition as to the part of the general traffic obstruction on April 24, 2015, or by applying Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act to the part of the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the final means of a notice of prohibition as to the part of the special obstruction of performance of official duties, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the part of the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

In addition, the Constitutional Court rendered a decision not to comply with the Constitution in order to prevent the legal gap situation where the provision is applied, since Article 200-2 of the Criminal Procedure Act and Article 11 subparagraph 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act are simply a decision of unconstitutionality as to Article 216 (1) 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 216 (1) 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act as to Article 20-2 of the same Act and Article 216 (1) 1 of the same Act, which is based on the premise that the above provision is applicable. Thus, the lower court did not err in its judgment on the premise that the above provision is applicable.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.