Of the convictions and innocences of the lower judgment, the part of the lower judgment’s acquittals each of the general traffic obstruction of May 30, 2008 and June 6, 2008.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of the legal principles (the part on violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration and the part on interference with general traffic) (A) and each assembly and demonstration violated the Act on Assembly and Demonstration (the part on violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration). At the time of the instant case, since the Constitutional Court’s decision on inconsistency with the Constitution on Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act was made, outdoor assemblies at night were generally prohibited at night, there was an objective circumstance under which it is impossible to comply with administrative procedures because it is objectively impossible to report the assembly at night and it was delivered to the police officer who is stationed in each assembly site before the assembly was held, and thus, the legitimacy of the unreported assembly is not denied.

(B) Since each general traffic obstruction has already been prevented from vehicle traffic due to the police's traffic control at the time of the instant case, it does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic by the participants of demonstration since there is no possibility of causing the traffic obstruction or danger by the participants of demonstration.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court (eight months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (1) mismisunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (the part of each general traffic obstruction which the court below acquitted the participants of the demonstration at the time of the instant case) brought about or occupied by the participants of the demonstration while holding an outdoor assembly without filing a report, causing a significant traffic demand and substantial obstacle to the vehicle traffic in the direction of the demonstration.

In light of the time of occupation, it is difficult to view the vehicle as a temporary occupation, so the passage of the vehicle has become impossible or considerably difficult due to each demonstration on the corresponding date.

It is sufficient to recognize.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted this part of the facts charged is erroneous by misapprehending the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unfair.