The judgment below

Of them, the part against Defendant C shall be reversed.

Defendant

C. The appeal by the defendant D and the prosecutor is not to be filed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant C and D’s misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) Although Defendant C did not have participated in the night demonstration on the day of the instant case, and did not interfere with traffic by occupying the lane, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or thereby convicted Defendant C of guilty. 2) Defendant D merely participated in the demonstration on the day of the instant case, and even though there was no perception or likelihood of traffic obstruction, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles, or thereby found Defendant D guilty.

3) The Constitutional Court rendered a partial decision on partial constitutionality of the part of the night demonstration under the provisions of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and the court below imposed punishment for the subsequent demonstration as of 24:00,000, the court below held that criminal punishment by applying the partial unconstitutional statutes violates the principle of clarity in penal laws and does not expect the public to comply with the partial unconstitutional laws and regulations. Therefore, there is an error of law that affected the conclusion of the judgment in misunderstanding the legal principles that found the above Defendants guilty of the night demonstration by applying the statutes that are partially unconstitutional. 4) On the day of the instant case, the police could be seen to have prevented the night assembly and demonstration by applying the above provisions of the Act, which are partially unconstitutional, and under the condition that legitimate assembly and demonstration are not guaranteed, it cannot be expected that lawful acts such as lawful acts in the situation where the assembly and demonstration are duly guaranteed to the public.

The court below found the above Defendants guilty of ordinary traffic obstruction. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principle as to the above Defendants' general traffic obstruction.

B. The prosecutor's (unfair assertion)'s sentence against Defendant A and E (a fine of KRW 1,00,000,000) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant C’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles