The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding and misapprehension of the legal principle), not only abstract danger of traffic obstruction at the time of the instant case, but also practical interference occurred, and it cannot be said that the establishment of general traffic obstruction depends on the criminal time and volume of traffic, etc., and it cannot be said that there are other doors available for vehicle traffic flow, nor can it be viewed that the

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which judged that the facts charged of this case constitute a case where there is no evidence of crime.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is that the Defendants are members of the Democratic Labor Relations Commission belonging to the Malaysia.

On May 18, 2014, at around 01:50, the Defendants demanded D’s interview during the participation in the Sewol ferry 618-1 Mapo-gu Seoul Mapo-gu Police Station, Mapo-gu, Seoul, and, on the other hand, Defendant A was able to enter the said police station by blocking 20 minutes of the 20-day door door door by preventing the F Police Vehicle E from entering the police station, including: (a) the head from the front door to the front door; and (b) Defendant B was able to prevent the said police vehicle from entering the police station.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to prevent the front of the Mapo Police Station from passing through the road and interfered with the traffic.

B. The lower court’s judgment is based on the legal doctrine stated in the Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10560 Decided January 30, 2009, based on the following: (a) the period during which the Defendants occupied the front door of the Mapo Police Station is 1:50 minutes or more of the new wall; (b) the occupied time is 20 minutes or more of the new wall; and (c) it does not seem to have interfered with the passage of vehicles or passage of traffics other than the above escorting vehicle; and (b) the Mapo Police Station has other entrances available for access to the vehicle in addition to the above front door.