The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant A shall be reversed.

Defendant

A shall be suspended from a sentence of punishment.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although Defendant B was landed on the road at the time, Defendant B’s failure to transport the vehicle at the time was due to the fact that the police completely controlled the eight-way road in order to launch a sports demonstration team, Defendant B’s act of getting off the road on the road.

In other words, Defendant B's general traffic obstruction constitutes an impossible crime.

In addition, due to Defendant B or Demonstration, the passage of the vehicle was hindered at the time.

Even if the vehicle's traffic has not become impossible or considerably difficult, there is no evidence to recognize it.

Nevertheless, the court below found Defendant B guilty of the crime of general traffic obstruction. Of the judgment below, there is an error of misconception of facts, violation of the rules of evidence, or misapprehension of the legal principle that affected the judgment.

B. (1) With respect to Defendant B, the lower court found that there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant participated in the above assembly on November 22, 201, at around 20:28, Defendant B and there was no evidence to prove that Defendant B conspired with other participants in the assembly and moved the above part of the facts charged, and there was no evidence to prove that the Defendant conspired with other participants in the assembly on the part of the facts charged regarding the above part. However, according to relevant evidence, the lower court erred in matters of mistake of facts in the above part of the judgment.

(B) The sentence imposed by the lower court on Defendant B (the suspension of the sentence and the fine of KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000,000), which

(2) As to Defendant A, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to Defendant A’s snow Qua Building.