The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: (a) the Defendant only participated in the process of creating a buffer zone to protect the demonstration team from ordinary vehicles at the aftermath of the demonstration team; (b) the Defendant’s act in this case on the road where the passage of the vehicle was impossible due to the demonstration does not constitute the element of general traffic obstruction; and (c) the Defendant did not establish a common traffic obstruction relation with the demonstration team, even though there was no public collusion or functional control over traffic obstruction due to the demonstration; and (d) the Defendant did not establish a common traffic obstruction relation with the demonstration team, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion

B. In light of the fact that the defendant is a simple participant of an unreasonable sentencing and is the primary offender, the lower court’s punishment (700,000 won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence based on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: (i) the Defendant, as a member of the Internet car page of “G”, was present at the meeting site of this case held with each other; (ii) the foregoing vehicles are attached with flagpoles and banners, etc., stating “G”, “Dog Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do, and Do Do Do Do Do Gu Do Do Do Do Gu Do Gu Do Gu Do Do Gu Do Gu Do Gu Do Gu Do”; (iii) the demonstration cost of this case was 20 parts of the vehicles belonging to G including the Defendant and other members of the G following the demonstration Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do e and Do Do e, and (iv) the Defendant acted for the purpose of protecting the demonstration unit. However, in light of the above circumstances,