The judgment below

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

Defendant

C A person shall be punished by imprisonment of one year and six months.

except that this shall not apply.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C1) In relation to the facts charged of the instant general traffic obstruction alleged by misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant did not have any intention to obstruct traffic as a general participant in the assembly, even if a person had intention to do so, the police issued a notice of prohibition against the rest of assembly except for the report of assembly in Seoul Square, and the Defendant’s general traffic obstruction constitutes a justifiable act in light of the fact that the police first installed the walls to prevent the movement of the participants in the assembly.

2) The sentence of the lower court’s sentence (one year and six months of imprisonment) that declared unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence (as to Defendant A) sentenced by the lower court (as to a suspended sentence of one year and six months of imprisonment, three years of a suspended sentence) is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court: (a) whether there was an intentional traffic obstruction to the Defendant; (b) the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below; (c) the participants in assemblies, including the Defendant, completed the Democratic Mo Workers’ Korean Labor Competition at the Seoul square; and (d) as indicated in the facts of the crime of interference with general traffic in the judgment of the court below, “10 lanes of the three-lanes from the 110 Seoul Jung-gu to the 135 Republic of Korea and the hotel before the 135 hotel as shown in the judgment of the court below, thereby blocking the flow of the two directions at the same time; and (b) the Defendant was aware of the prohibition of the assembly at the above location through the media before the day before the assembly was held.

(3) The police officer stated that the police officer voluntarily requested dispersion and ordered dispersion over several occasions on the ground that the police is under interference with road traffic due to the above assembly and exceeded the reported scope of assembly, and ④ The participants of assembly including the defendant do not dissolve despite the demand of the police for voluntary dispersion and dispersion order.