The conviction part of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of second instance shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of both appeals;

A. The Prosecutor’s grounds of appeal (1) Inasmuch as the misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the acquittal portion among the judgment of the court of first instance can be fully acknowledged, the conspiracy relation with the participants in other assemblies who occupy the lane without permission misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the co-principal, thereby denying the conspiracy relation by misunderstanding of the legal principles, and the judgment below

B. The Defendant’s grounds for appeal (1) (1) erroneous determination of facts as to the general traffic obstruction as of August 20, 201 and August 27, 2011, and unreasonable sentencing (2) by misapprehending the legal principles on the Defendant’s appeal (1)

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the scope of establishment of the general traffic obstruction and the legislative intent of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “Assembly”) as a co-principal, in a case where an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road after completing lawful reports, the traffic of the road may be restricted to a certain extent. Therefore, in a case where such assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or it was conducted differently from the reported details, if the traffic interference of the road was not remarkably deviates from the reported scope, barring special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established, barring special circumstances.

However, in a case where the assembly or demonstration significantly deviates from the scope of the original report, or seriously violates the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by interfering with road traffic, it constitutes a general traffic obstruction crime.

(1) Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008; 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). However, the Plaintiff participated in an assembly or demonstration that considerably deviates from the scope of the original report or that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by interfering with road traffic by