All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as a simple participant of an assembly on the facts constituting the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant assembly”), was unaware of the fact that the road occupied by the Defendant was not the way on which the Defendant was reported, and the road at the time was driven did not have the vehicle flow prior to the commencement of the driving. The Defendant, while the police was driven, has protected the police, and did not have any and all acts of violence with the police. As such, the Defendant committed a direct act causing traffic interference.

In light of the degree of involvement and the circumstances leading up to participation, it is difficult to see that the defendant's conspiracy does not constitute a case where the defendant is able to jointly commit the crime.

B. The defendant asserts that the court below's punishment (amounting to 500,000 won) is too unreasonable, and the prosecutor asserts that it is too unfasible and unfair.

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an abstract dangerous crime, in which traffic is impossible or substantially difficult, and the result of traffic interference is not practically likely (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). However, it cannot be said that the crime of interference with general traffic is established as a matter of course solely on the ground that the participant participated in an assembly and demonstration that substantially deviates from the reported scope and substantially interfered with traffic, but in fact, if the participant has committed a direct act that causes traffic interference by taking part in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a serious violation of the reported conditions, or if it does not so, the participant is liable for the crime as a joint principal offender in light of the participant's circumstances or degree of participation, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5280, Nov. 15, 2004).