1. On May 15, 2013, with respect to the point of interference with ordinary traffic (excluding the portion of innocence)

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the charge of interference with ordinary traffic on May 15, 2013, which was found guilty by the lower court, was as follows: (a) the Defendant participated with approximately 2,50 participants in other assemblies at the “MMMMSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS

B. In light of the circumstances indicated in its holding, the lower court: (a) reported by metal labor unions to hold an assembly on two lanes; (b) Defendant and participants of the assembly held an assembly on three lanes prior to the Hyundai Motor Headquarters; (c) the rest of one lane was installed by the police in order to prevent all traffic; and (d) it appears that the installation of a garage on one lane would have been agreed between the police and the metal labor union; and (c) in light of the circumstances as indicated in its reasoning, the agreement was reached between the police and the vehicle labor union on one lane, in which the police would have agreed to install the tea; and (d) there was an agreement to hold an assembly on three lanes as alleged by the Defendant.

It is difficult to see, and the judgment of the first instance court, which recognized that there is no lane for traffic by holding a meeting on the three-lanes with the intention to hold a meeting on the two-lanes, is legitimate.

(c)

However, such determination by the lower court is difficult to accept for the following reasons.