All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, as a simple participant of the instant assembly at the time of arrival at the place of assembly, was already under control of the vehicle due to the installation of the police walls. As such, the Defendant was in the said place.

Even if such an act has become impossible or significantly difficult to pass through a large road.

In light of the circumstances and degree of participation in the assembly of this case, the defendant cannot be held liable as a principal offender.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

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

2. Determination

A. In addition, in light of the provisions and legislative intent of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the purpose of the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to land, road, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means, and the crime of interference with traffic in general is an abstract dangerous offender, which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by means of traffic, and the result of traffic interference is not likely to occur (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005).