The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Cheongju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that the prosecutor's amendment of the indictment made in the court below was merely a correction of the indictment to the effect that the substance of the indictment would correct the clerical error or mistake in the indictment, and accordingly, it did not reverse ex officio the judgment of the court of first instance because the subject of the trial is the same as the judgment of the court of first instance, or did not separately decide on the changed facts in the court of first instance. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant, who is only a general participant, is in a joint principal relation with the participants who did not join the court of first instance, and affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the prosecutor of the facts charged in the

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. In a case where a prosecutor’s company has reached an appellate trial and changed the facts charged or the subject of the trial differs from the first instance trial, the appellate court shall reverse the judgment of the first instance and make a new judgment on the changed facts charged (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do13, 96Da2, Mar. 26, 1996; 2010Do11823, Nov. 11, 2010). Furthermore, the purpose of the Criminal Act is to punish the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which is to protect the public’s legal interest, by destroying or infusing the land, etc. or impeding traffic, thereby making it impossible or significantly difficult to pass through the road due to interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 195).