All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant was merely a simple participant at a meeting on April 16, 2015, as stated in paragraph (1) of the judgment of the court below, and the Defendant was under the control of the vehicle by installing a wall before the Defendant participated in the meeting. Thus, the Defendant’s act interfered with traffic on the instant land.

However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (hereinafter “the allegation of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine”). (B) The Defendant, related to the facts constituting the crime as set forth in Article 2 of the lower judgment’s decision, only moved along the way of lawful report at the meeting of the Defendant on April 24, 2015, and the Defendant was in a state of traffic control due to the vehicle barriers already installed by the police prior to the Defendant’s participation in the assembly, and thus, the Defendant obstructed

Although the lower court’s conviction of this part of the facts charged cannot be seen, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment (hereinafter “B. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine”). 2) The sentence (3 million won) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

B. The prosecutor (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the lower court also asserted that ① the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine was identical to that of the lower court.

In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court held that the Defendant is not a simple participant at a meeting of the assembly on April 16, 2015, and that the Defendant is occupying and driving on the road in collusion with other participants at a meeting of the assembly at an implied and consistent level.