The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. In light of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and its legislative intent, in cases where a legitimate report is completed under the Assembly and Demonstration Act and an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road, the traffic of the road shall be restricted to any extent.

Therefore, in a case where an assembly or demonstration conducted within the reported scope or conducted differently from the reported details, and the reported scope is not considerably deviating from the reported scope, barring any special circumstance, general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is not established even if the traffic obstruction of roads was caused thereby.

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) In light of the above legal principles, the part of the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on traffic safety under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on traffic safety under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

In fact, the participants engaged in a direct act causing traffic obstruction by taking part in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a serious violation of the conditions as above, or, if not, the participants may be held liable for the crime as a co-principal in light of the participant's circumstances and degree of involvement, etc.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do4921, Nov. 10, 2016). 2. A

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was held on December 28, 2013 by the Defendant, who is a member B.