The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The Defendant’s act of occupying the road on the part of the gist of the grounds for appeal constitutes “other means,” which is the form of an act of obstructing general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and since the act of obstructing general traffic is continuing to be an offense, even if the Defendant arrived at the site after installing a

Even if it is possible to establish common principals until traffic obstruction is terminated, it is difficult to establish common principals. At the time, the location of broadcasting vehicles for the dispersion order was very difficult for the Defendant to leave on the road, and the order of dispersion was broadcasted several times, and the Defendant was aware that the assembly of this case was illegal.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone proves that the defendant was either a direct act causing traffic obstruction or a joint principal offender between the participants in the assembly who caused traffic obstruction and the participants in the assembly.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there are errors in the misapprehension of facts, such as the prosecutor's assertion.

subsection (b) of this section.

Therefore, prosecutor's assertion is without merit.

① On November 12, 2015, the Korean National Police Agency, from November 14, 2015 to 20:00 on November 14, 2015, 16:00 to 20:00, the Korean National Police Agency shall take advantage of the entire delivery of the Seoul Squa-Seoul National Assembly building- Sejong-Seoul National Assembly building-Cheongpy-Cheongnam-Cheonggyeong-Cheonggyeong Campaign Community Service Center.

On the 13th of the same month, the Seoul Regional Police Agency made a notification of prohibition to the above Jin.

However, the Defendant was unaware of the content of the report and the notice of prohibition of the assembly and demonstration in the investigative agency.

There was a statement (50 pages of evidence record) and otherwise, it was known in advance.