The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the process of a misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (the point of a general traffic obstruction), driving along a road does not fall under the elements for the formation of a general traffic obstruction, and the Defendant’s driving along a road with other participants in other assemblies had already been completed after the passage of the surrounding road due to the installation of a police wall, and thus, it is not recognized that the Defendant’s driving on a road has a causal relationship between the Defendant’s act and the traffic obstruction. The Defendant did not have a conspiracy to interfere with the traffic obstruction in collusion with many and unspecified persons.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination as to the misapprehension of the legal principles and mistake of the fact as to the general traffic obstruction

A. The summary of this part of the facts charged is the head of the chapter D branch of the Korean Public Transport and Social Services Trade Union (hereinafter “Public Transport Union”) which was held on November 14, 2015 by the start of the General Assembly of the Korean Democratic Workers’ Union (hereinafter “National Union of Labor”)’s Republic of Korea (hereinafter “Public Union”), and the Defendant, as the head of the chapter D branch of the Korean Public Transport and Social Services Workers’ Union (hereinafter “Public Transport Union”), from November 14, 2015 to 20:30, attempted to enter the road into the erogate of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government in collusion with the participants of the above assembly by moving the road into the eromatic square.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged in full view of the evidence in its judgment.

(c)

1) In light of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly Act”) and the legislative intent thereof, if a legitimate report is completed under the Assembly and Demonstration Act and an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road, the traffic of the road may be restricted to any extent.

Therefore, it is reported that the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or it was conducted differently from the reported contents.