The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The request for adjudication on the constitutionality of the instant case is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant alleged misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, at the time of the instant assembly, used the crosswalk or delivery.

In particular, in consideration of the fact that there was a bypass in the case of two lanes prior to the LG Turururury, and that there was a bypass in the case of two lanes next to the shortest of the Seodaemun and that there was a bypass in the case of four minutes a bypass in the case of two lanes next to the shortest of the Seodaemun, the traffic has not been impeded so that the passage of the vehicle could be impossible or remarkably difficult due to the movement of the participants including the Defendant.

The interference with general traffic shall be construed only as an act that causes danger to the safety of traffic, body or property. Considering the constitutional fundamental rights of freedom of assembly, in cases of assemblies and demonstrations on roads, general traffic obstruction shall be applied only when such assembly and demonstration clearly poses a direct danger to public safety and order, thereby causing danger to the traffic safety.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s wrongful assertion of sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime that legally protects the general public’s traffic safety, and its purpose is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1926, Jul. 10, 2014). The general traffic obstruction constitutes an abstract dangerous crime, and thus, the traffic obstruction is impossible or remarkably difficult if it falls under the so-called abstract dangerous crime, and the result of traffic obstruction is not a real occurrence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4662, Dec. 14, 2007).