Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

From December 28, 2013 to December 15:13, 2013, the Democratic Labor gun held 8,000 people participating in the Seoul Square in Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, and 23,000 people were gathered at the above conference until 16:25 on the same day.

From 16:50 to 16:50, the so-called "the National Assembly of the National Assembly at the time of the National Assembly held an assembly of the name "the candlelightlight culture system" in the same place. At around 17:50, some of the participants in the assembly occupied the front lane of the designated duty-free shop in the vicinity of the Dongdol Island, and at around 18:10, the number of participants reached 5,000 people and tried to go along the Sejong-ro in the direction of the luminous up to 19:35.

At around 18:07 on the same day, the Defendant moved to the front of the duty-free shop in the same kind with the participants from 18:21 to 18:21 on the same day so that the passage of the vehicle was impossible.

Accordingly, the defendant conspired with the participants in the assembly and demonstration to interfere with the traffic of vehicles.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the police interrogation of the accused;

1. The photographic materials of the Assembly or Demonstration, the entire photographs of the National Assembly of the Korean National Assembly of the Republic of Korea on December 28, 2013, and the photographs A of the National Assembly of the Korean National Assembly of the Korean National Assembly of the Korean National Assembly on December 28, 2013;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to intelligence situation materials and report on outdoor assembly;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts. Article 185 (Selection of Punishment of Fines)

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse asserts that the defendant did not intend to commit a crime of interference with general traffic since the defendant merely sought with the child at the above assembly and did not participate in the above assembly.

In full view of all the evidence in the judgment, the fact that the defendant was mixed with the participants of the demonstration who moved on the road in front of the duty-free shop on December 28, 2013 at around 18:21, 2013, and the above assembly report does not occupy the road or is scheduled to run on the road.