2017Do11524 General traffic obstruction

A

Defendant

Law Firm B

Attorney E, C, AD, F, G, H

AE, AF, AG, AH, AI, AJ

Suwon District Court Decision 2016No7984 Decided June 30, 2017

March 29, 2018

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: the National Federation of Democratic Trade Unions (hereinafter referred to as the "National Federation of Labor Unions").

With respect to the 14 November 2015, which was held on November 14, 2015 by establishing the Public-Private Partnership Headquarters:

The Defendant, as a member of the Mano-K National Metal Labor Unions JJ branch, is attending an assembly as a member of the staff who belongs to the Mano-K.

In collaboration with the National Metal Workers, Seoul for about one hour from November 14, 2015, 15:00 to about one hour.

As of the Gu Type C, 135 Korea or the front of the hotel in Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, 67 on the front of the 67 old Samsunghead office.

Up to the road, traffic on the road by occupying approximately 1.2 km of the two lanes prior to the two directions of the 12-way line on the road.

That is the fact that it had been.

B. The lower court, as in the first instance trial, evidence, evidence of “15:00 times of crime” among the facts charged in the instant case.

to the extent recognized by section 15:30, after the police has been recognized as 'within the scope recognized by section 15:30, the police has installed a garage.

The defendant who was in the front part of the participants in the assembly that prevented the progress of the assembly at the time.

They occupy the lanes of three lanes in the light of the situation where a dispersion order has been issued more than twice in the inspection.

of this case’s assembly and demonstration in the form of

Demonstration by driving along the lane, standing or standing on the lane, etc., even if possible;

Participatory the direct act that may cause interference with traffic, and this is caused by the first road.

Considering that traffic is impossible or significantly difficult, the determination of guilty of this part of the facts charged shall be made

However, the first instance judgment was maintained as it is.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) and its legislation

In light of the purport of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, after completing a lawful report under the same Act, an assembly or demonstration on the road.

Therefore, an assembly or demonstration can only be limited to a certain degree of traffic in case of a road.

The scope of the report filed even if it was conducted within the scope of the report or was conducted differently from the details reported;

In the absence of substantial deviation, the traffic of the road has been obstructed thereby.

Unless there are special circumstances, the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is not established.

Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, which seriously deviates from the scope of the original report; or

In order to make it impossible or remarkably impossible to pass through a road due to serious violation of road traffic;

If it is difficult to make it difficult, the general traffic obstruction is established (Supreme Court Order November 13, 2008).

206Do755 decided Feb. 1, 200

However, the scope of the original report is considerably deviates from the scope or the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act are serious.

In violation of this Act, it makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by interfering with road traffic.

participation in the assembly and demonstration, as a matter of course, in all such participants;

It does not constitute a crime of piracy. In fact, the participant is obvious of the scope reported as above.

Deviting from or taking part in a significant violation of the conditions and caused interference with traffic;

or, if not, the participation is made in light of the circumstances, degree, etc. of the participation of the participant;

The general traffic obstruction is established in the case where the liability as a co-principal may be charged to a person.

(2) The lower court determined that the Plaintiff was aware of the facts charged with the Plaintiff on November 10, 2016.

B. The following circumstances revealed by the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record are the legal doctrine as seen earlier.

In light of the above, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below.

1) On November 12, 2015, Seoul District Court held on November 12, 2015, with respect to the Korean Workers’ and the Korean Workers’ Guns.

The Commissioner General of the National Police Agency shall grant to the Commissioner General of the National Police Agency the Seoul square from November 14, 2015 to 20:00.

Happed to go through the Happiness Happiness - the Cheongpped Residents' Center of the Cheongpped Office by using the entire delivery;

The Seoul Local Police Agency notified the prohibition of the above Jin-J. However, the above house of this case

It is recognized that the defendant had prior knowledge of the scope of the report or the contents of the prohibition of the assembly or demonstration;

There is no evidence.

2) From November 14, 2015, the Defendant from around 15:30 on November 14, 2015 to before Korea or a hotel in the former Samsung C&T.

Pursuant to the column, the engine was driven along with the third class, was sitting or standing on the lane, and was participating in the demonstration.

C. However, at the time of the participation of the demonstration by the defendant's driving along the above road, the police has already been involved.

The traffic of the vehicle was suspended by installing a wall and blocking and controlling the traffic of the vehicle.

3) The Defendant’s assembly of this case as a member of the staff belonging to the king of the Korean Metal Labor Relations Group (JJ).

It seems to have taken a simple part in the assembly and demonstration, and play a leading role in the assembly and demonstration.

Functions through direct action that may cause traffic obstruction or substantial contribution to it;

There is no circumstance to see that there was an appropriate control over the act.

4) Ultimately, the Defendant’s significant deviations from the reported scope on the instant assembly and demonstration; or

section 23(2)(3)(3)(3)(1)(2)(2)(2)(2)(

It shall not be deemed that the person is responsible as a co-principal for the obstruction of anti-traffic.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise by misapprehending the law of logic and experience.

In the event of exceeding the bounds of the due diligence, or misapprehending the legal principles on general traffic obstruction and joint principal offense, thereby exceeding the boundaries.

The lower judgment affected by the conclusion of the judgment. The ground of appeal assigning this error is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Kim In-bok, Counsel for defendant

Justices Park Sang-ok

Justices Park Il-san