The defendant shall be innocent.

The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1) The background of the assembly or demonstration of this case

On September 14, 2015, the Korean Democratic Labor Union Federation (hereinafter referred to as the “Korean Labor Union Federation”) agreed in principle on the structural reform of the labor market at the Economic and Social Development Labor-Government Committee (hereinafter “Labor-Government Committee”). The agreement of the Labor-Management and Labor-Government Committee was strongly contrary to the agreement of the Labor-Management and Labor-Government Committee, and the agreement of the Labor-Management and Labor-Government Committee strongly led to seeking a strike activation under the direction that “the agreement of the Government is forced to stop the follow-up measures of the Government.” However, the agreement of the Labor-Management and Labor-Government Committee led to a relatively low interest of the people in the structural reform of the labor market.

As a result, ○○○○○○○○○○○ Federation, etc., which was against the rice price decline, ratification of the Korea-China FTA, and TPP accession, etc., shall be held jointly with civil and social organizations, such as the △△△△△△△ Group, the △△△ Group, which opposed to the presidentialization of private textbooks, such as the △△△△△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Group, etc., and the △△△△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Group, etc., to hold a large-scale large-scale large-scale presidential rally. On September 22, 2015, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ was called the △△△△△△△△△△△△△△, etc., and announced the 15th goal of the 10th presidential rally, which is called the 1015th presidential rally.

On Nov. 14, 2015, the “Cho-gu Headquarters for the Stoption of Public Sector” was planned to proceed with the prior assembly at the relevant place by five sectors in total, consisting of labor (Seoul Sho-ro), farmers (Seoul Sho-ro), citizens (Seoul Man-ro Park), and Man-gu (Seoul Man-ro Park), and Man-gu (Seoul Man-ro). At around 16:00 on the same day, it was planned to proceed with the “Pho-gu Man-gu Man-gu Man-gu Man-si Man-si,” which is the main assembly, by gathering together with the Gho-gu Man-gu Man-gu Man-si, the “Pho-gu Man-gu Man-si,” which was the one participating in each sector’s prior assembly. Accordingly, the 68,000 persons, who participated in each sector, were holding the main assembly at the Gho-gu.

2) Criminal facts

The Defendant is a full-time employee of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu Office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Gu Office of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and is in charge of the duties.

On November 14, 2015, around 14:00, the Defendant, at around 14:00, went together with the members of the Seoul metropolitan office located in Jung-gu, Jung-gu, Seoul, Seoul, and brought up the said demonstration group in front of the hotel located in the Seoul metropolitan office.

From around that time to 18:50 of that day, the Defendant occupied the front lane of the road with 68,000 participants at the front of the police first wall installed in front of the Taegu, Seoul.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the traffic in collusion with the above participants in the assembly by causing them to pass on the road.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

1) Defendant

(1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

As a simple participant in the assembly of this case, the Defendant already set up a wall by the police and brought the vehicle at the order of the participants in the assembly after the passage of the vehicle was completely cut off. The Defendant cannot be deemed to have obstructed the traffic due to the Defendant’s act, and the Defendant cannot be said to have had intention to interfere with the general traffic.

(2) Unreasonable sentencing

Punishment (one million won of fine) declared by the court below is too unreasonable.

(ii)a prosecutor;

The sentence sentenced by the court below is too uneasible and unfair.

3. Judgment on the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles by the defendant

1) The judgment of the court below

The lower court found the Defendant guilty of charges on the grounds that the commencement of a demonstration prohibited, thereby making the road traffic significantly difficult, and that the following is the result of the progress of the demonstration from remarkably deviating from the way reported by the participants in the assembly, including the Defendant.

2) Determination of the immediate deliberation

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the court below found the defendant guilty even though the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to find the defendant guilty, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension

① The Defendant recognized only the fact that he had been on the plane from 15:00 to 16:00. The evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Defendant participated in the instant assembly from 14:00 to 18:50, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. The lower court also found the Defendant guilty of the criminal fact occupying the lane from 15:00 to 16:00, and the Prosecutor did not appeal against this.

② On November 14, 2015, around 14:25, approximately 1,500 persons, such as metalnolights, were occupied in the direction of luminous in front of the Seoul square. The police began to move to the Korean Press Center, around 14:39, the line of order set up in the third type of building front of the Seoul SPS Center. At around 14:50, approximately 4,500 persons, who moved to the front of the Seoul square, were set up in the front of the Seoul square, and moved to the front of the Seoul SPS Center. At around 14:50, approximately 4,500 persons were set up in the metal nozzles, which moved to the front of the Seoul square. At around 14:5:5 demonstration, approximately 6,00 persons were set up in the front of the Seoul square, and the front of the Seoul SPS Center and the front of the Seoul SPS 1:5:5:500 malle, the front of the Seoul SP.

③ At the latest, the Defendant did not arrive at the site and did not participate in the prior assembly, and was waiting in the vicinity of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council. However, there was a full distance from 15:03 to 22:2,23 of the evidence record. The last time and place where the communication of vehicles is confirmed from the judgment (Seoul Central District Court 2016Gohap12, 2016Gohap46, 2016Gohap102 (combined))] of the vehicle at the seat of 14:48, and the direction and place of the vehicle at the seat of 15:0 to 15:0 of the vehicle’s front at the seat of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Council (Seoul Metropolitan City Council around 15:0) and the direction and place of the vehicle’s front at the seat of 4:15:0 of the vehicle’s front of the vehicle’s front at the seat of 15:4:15 of the vehicle’s front of the front of the entrance of the vehicle at the seat of 15:4:15:4:04:0 of the vehicle.

④ A large number of people driving along a road in a state where traffic flow has already been completely cut off shall not be deemed to cause an abstract danger of traffic obstruction. Since the Defendant may be deemed to walk on a road in a state where traffic flow has been completely cut off due to police traffic control and installation of a side wall, it may not be deemed that the Defendant caused a danger to traffic obstruction. Meanwhile, according to the established legal doctrine that does not recognize a succeeded joint principal offender, the Defendant may not be held liable for the traffic congestion conducted by other participants in the assembly prior to the completion of the road occupation of the participants in the assembly. Moreover, insofar as there is no evidence that the Defendant conspireds with other participants in the assembly in advance for a road occupation, the liability for the joint principal offender of the obstruction of general traffic obstruction cannot be said to have occurred.

5. Conclusion

Since the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles are well-grounded, the judgment of the court below is reversed under Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act without examining both parties' assertion of unfair sentencing, and the following decision is

Judges Kim Dong-young (Presiding Judge)