Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant of the facts charged is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to joint principals and general traffic obstruction.

2. Determination

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Act”) and Article 6(1) of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, in a case where a lawful report is completed under the Act and an assembly or demonstration on the road is conducted on the road, the traffic of the road is restricted to a certain degree. Therefore, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or it was conducted differently from the reported contents, and thus, the traffic of the road was obstructed due to the failure of a significant deviation from the reported scope.

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, if the assembly or demonstration significantly deviates from the scope of the original report or seriously violates the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by interfering with road traffic, it constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic.

In this regard, the first report was remarkably deviates from the scope, or participated in an assembly and demonstration that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by interfering with road traffic by seriously violating the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

As a matter of course, all such participants cannot be deemed to have interference with general traffic, and in fact, those participants engaged in a direct act that may cause interference with traffic by taking part in significant deviations from the reported scope or significant violation of the said conditions.