The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, Defendant was placed at the site of the instant assembly to gather news, and the participants of the instant assembly did not take relief or flag with a flag card or flag with them, and only he was set up with a flag, and was set off on a locked road for photograph while traffic was controlled.

The defendant did not have shared or recruited direct action with respect to the acts of interference with general traffic of the participants in the assembly.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of the first instance which convicted the defendant for the purport that the defendant conspired with other participants in the assembly to occupy the roadway and interfere with traffic by occupying the roadway, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Even if a conviction is found against an unjust defendant, one deliberation penalty (one million won penalty) is too unreasonable.

(b)one review type for an inspection is too unhued and unreasonable;

2. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The person participated in an assembly or demonstration which clearly deviates from the scope of the initial report on the relevant legal principles or significantly violates the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by interfering with road traffic.

As a matter of course, all such participants cannot be deemed to have committed general traffic obstruction. In fact, the participants are required to engage in a direct act that causes traffic obstruction by participating in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a serious violation of the said conditions, or in the absence of such a direct act, the participants may be held liable for the crime committed as a joint principal offender for the public offering in light of the developments leading up to the participation or the degree of involvement by the participants (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Do5280, Nov. 25, 2004; 2012Do14137, Mar. 13, 2014).