A. Defendant 1) In light of the fact-misunderstanding and the misapprehension of legal principles, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant 1 guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and the misapprehension of legal principles.

① When the Defendant attended an assembly held in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant assembly”) and started a parallel with the participants in the assembly, the Defendant was unable to pass the vehicle due to the completion of the installation of a garage by the police at the place of the assembly at the assembly site, and thus, there is no relation between the Defendant’s act and the result of traffic obstruction.

② The Defendant, as a simple participant of the instant assembly, committed a direct act that may cause traffic obstruction on the sole basis of the fact that he/she had been engaged in the instant assembly with other participants in the assembly.

There is no awareness or intention of traffic interference.

In addition, in light of the circumstances and degree of involvement, the defendant can not be held liable for joint principal offenders with respect to public traffic obstruction.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 3 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, in light of the legislative intent of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly Act”) and Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, in a case where an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road after completing lawful reports pursuant to the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the road traffic is limited to a certain degree. Thus, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or carried out differently from the reported contents, and where the reported scope is not remarkably deviating from the reported scope, the road traffic was obstructed thereby.

Even if there are no special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established.

However, the assembly or demonstration is remarkably deviating from the scope of the original report.