The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Examining the details of the Defendant’s participation in the assembly and the degree of involvement in the assembly, etc., in the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendant did not have any conspiracy or intention to obstruct traffic, and the Defendant’s act of this case also includes the damage, passage, or other means equivalent thereto of interference with general traffic.

In addition, since the police installed a wall to the site of this case before the defendant attends the assembly and the passage of the vehicle was completely controlled, there is no relation with the defendant's act and traffic obstruction.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle of the defendant

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an abstract dangerous crime, in which traffic is impossible or substantially difficult, and the result of traffic interference is not practically likely (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). However, the crime of interference with general traffic is not established as a matter of course solely on the ground that the participant participated in an assembly and demonstration that substantially deviates from the reported scope and substantially obstructed traffic, but in fact, if the participant has committed a direct act that causes interference with traffic by taking part in a significant deviation or serious violation of the reported scope, or if the participant does not do so, in light of the process of the participant's participation or the degree of his involvement, it constitutes interference with general traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5280, Nov. 15, 2004).