(영문) 대법원 2017.12.5.선고 2017도11495 판결

The national countermeasures conference against full-scale beef imports (hereinafter referred to as the "national countermeasures conference") organized by the National Committee;

The term "candlelightlight assembly" (hereinafter referred to as the "candlelight assembly") of U.S. beef import; and

approximately 3,00 persons who participated in the Council and up to 23:40 of the same day, Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Srorogate, paper

1. Passing of the vehicle by occupying a roadway, such as a street, a angle, and a long-distance in front of the beam, and conducting demonstration;

It is impossible to make it impossible to obstruct the traffic of vehicles in collusion with the participants in the above assembly.

(c)

2. The court below made a statement that the defendant had already obstructed roads at the time of the defendant's participation in the above assembly

On the day of the instant case, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone to the effect that the assembly, demonstration, or demonstration was conducted on the day of the instant case

Installation and traffic of a police station because it is difficult to confirm the installation of a physical and physical barriers by the police, etc.

The result of the Defendant’s action after the Defendant participated in the assembly

It is difficult to readily conclude that the defendant's participation, the background, time of arrival, and the status of simple participants, etc.

Considering that the defendant's communication with other participants of the demonstration through an implied and successive communication;

The purpose is to accept the acts of other participants as their own means of their own will.

on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the defendant had an intention to conduct a internal deliberation, and the defendant took another demonstration;

The defendant may not be deemed to have interfered with the traffic of roads in collusion with family members.

The judgment of the court of first instance which found the defendant guilty for the crime of anti-traffic obstruction was reversed and acquitted.

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

(a) Interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act shall become the protected legal interest of traffic safety of the general public;

(1) If a person commits an offense, such as damage to or influoring a road or interfering with traffic by any other means;

The purpose of punishing any act which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to conduct such act is to punish such act.

See Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1926 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.

Article 30 of the Criminal Code is a functional act based on the intention of joint processing and the intention of joint processing.

It is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements of committing a crime through ships. Among the competitors, it is established by meeting the subjective and objective requirements.

A person who does not directly share and implement part of the constituent elements of a crime, and he/she forms the whole crime

in full view of the status, role, control or rushness of the progress of the crime, simple public

There is a functional control through substantial contribution to crime, not just with mother and child, but with a functional control.

If a person is a so-called co-principal, he/she is liable for the crime (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do2994 Decided June 23, 2009).

See Supreme Court Decision, etc.)

B. The evidence duly admitted by the court below reveals the following facts.

1) The participants in several thousand assemblies, including the National Countermeasure Meeting, shall be social members around 20:00 on July 26, 2008.

After the conclusion declaration of the assembly is completed, Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Seorota, Sejong 1 Ghana, Sejong 2rota, Sejong 1 Ghana

At the same time, the police moved along the 21:10, 21:15, 21:20, 21:20, 21:20.

Although the participants in the assembly were ordered to dissolve on three occasions, the participants in the assembly shall be ordered to dissolve the police.

The Order did not comply with the Ordinance.

2) On July 26, 2008, the Defendant participated in the instant assembly at around 21:00 and together with other participants.

The act of occupying and driving along the lane prior to Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and such act of occupying and driving on the same day.

around 23:40, the road of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is continued until it is arrested as a flagrant offender.

3) The police repeatedly ordered the demonstration team to dissolve several times, and the police does not comply with the order.

Although it was attempted to arrest, the demonstration team has escaped with India and again acted to occupy the road.

was returned. The police did not comply with the attachment of the demonstration group, including the Defendant, even if the police sent the demonstration group to India;

Before the date of the Demonstration Team’s proposal, the Defendant was arrested as a flagrant offender and eight persons were arrested.

One of the above eight persons was the one.

4) The above assembly and a chief executive officer were conducted without reporting to the chief executive officer having jurisdiction.

C. We examine these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

1) The Defendant, together with other participants in the assembly, has occupied a lane and conducted a lot of time demonstration.

as the participants of the assembly are aware of each other's acts, and implied and successively;

There may be room to see that the combination of doctors was achieved through the conference of this case by the defendant.

direct conduct that interferes with traffic, such as road occupation and use, in the state of recognition of illegality;

(2) The court below held that such action was not an action.

2) The participants in the instant assembly were completely limited to the traffic of vehicles by occupying the roads.

Therefore, their act of occupying roads constitutes intentional and direct traffic obstruction.

the corporation.

3) Even if the Defendant was not a party to a mere demonstration, the Defendant at the time of the instant assembly

The overall trend of the assembly, the contents of the assembly and the details of the participants in the assembly occupying roads;

When comprehensively considering the form of act, the duration of occupation and use on the road, etc., the defendant is simple to commit the above crimes.

functional control over a crime through substantial contribution to the crime, not just as the contestor.

Since it shall be recognized as a person existing, the liability for the crime as a co-principal of general traffic obstruction.

It can not be exempted.

D. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not-guilty verdict on the grounds stated in its reasoning.

The judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to general traffic obstruction and conspiracy joint principal.

The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

4. Therefore, in order to reverse the judgment below and to re-examine and determine the case, the court below's decision is reversed.

The case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.