The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Before a mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles was driven by the Defendant in the direction of the private distance of Ansan-dong, the police manpower had already installed a wall using the police bus at the private distance of Ansan-dong. It cannot be deemed that the participants, such as the Defendant, etc. occupy a lane prior to the private distance of Ansan-dong, and it cannot be deemed that traffic has been obstructed by the act of participants in assemblies such as the Defendant, etc.

B. The punishment of the first instance of unfair sentencing (1.5 million won of fine) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. In light of the provisions and legislative intent of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration on misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, in a case where an assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or was conducted differently from the reported contents, and the reported scope is not considerably deviating from the reported scope, barring any special circumstance, it cannot be deemed that a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established, barring any special circumstance. However, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was considerably deviating from the reported scope or considerably obstructed road traffic by seriously violating the conditions under the provisions of the Act, thereby making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass through by interfering with road traffic, the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). General traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, where traffic is impossible or substantially difficult, the traffic is as soon as possible, and the result of traffic obstruction is not practically necessary.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). First, according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court (Investigation Records 73-74, 114-116), the fact that the Defendant occupied the lane prior to the two directions of the distance between the inside and the inside of the inside of the country, along with other participants in the assembly, can be sufficiently recognized.

In addition, the first instance court, ..