All appeals are dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the Defendant’s grounds of appeal, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the part concerning general traffic obstruction among the facts charged in the instant case.

The judgment below

Examining the reasoning in light of the relevant legal principles and evidence duly admitted, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of general traffic obstruction.

2. As to the Prosecutor’s ground of appeal

A. The Constitutional Court rendered a ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution to the effect that “The part concerning “the National Assembly Party” in Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (wholly amended by Act No. 8424, May 11, 2007; hereinafter “the Assembly Assembly Assembly Act”) and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the same Act in Article 23 shall not comply with the Constitution,” and that “the above provision of the Act shall continue to apply until it is amended by December 31, 2019,” and “the above provision of the Act shall continue to apply until it is amended by December 31, 2019.” (The Constitutional Court Decision 2013Hun-Ba322, 2013Hun-Ba354, 2016Hun-Ba354, 2017Hun-Ba360, 398, 2018Hun-Ga3, 471, 2018, 3, 94(m) and hereinafter “the Act”).

B. The Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution is a modified form that does not stipulate the Constitution and the Constitutional Court Act, but constitutes a decision of unconstitutionality as to legal provisions.

Article 11 subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act stipulates that Article 11 subparag. 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act should be violated, and Article 11 subparag. 1 of the same Act is combined with Article 23 subparag. 3 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and thus, Article 11 subparag. 1 of the same Act becomes effective. Thus, the Constitutional Court’s ruling of inconsistency with the Constitution as to Article 23 subparag. 3 of the same Act becomes unconstitutional as to Article 23 subparag. 1 of the same Act.

And the Constitutional Court Act;