The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of the facts or misapprehension of the legal principles, the Defendant did not interfere with the business as stated in the facts charged, and merely carried out two to three minutes on the road, thereby not constituting a crime of interference with traffic under the Road Traffic Act.

B. The Defendant was in a state of mental and physical loss or mental weakness under the influence of alcohol at the time of committing the instant crime.

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below which is unfair in sentencing (4 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. An ex officio determination prosecutor shall not place, sit, or standing on the road in a manner that interferes with traffic on the road as “violation of the Road Traffic Act” among the names of the crimes in the trial. The facts charged in the instant case shall not be construed as “no person is sitting, standing, or standing on the road in a manner that interferes with traffic.”

Nevertheless, around 05:00 on May 11, 2014, the Defendant, while under the influence of alcohol on the roads front of the D convenience store located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, committed an act interfering with the traffic of vehicles passing through the center of the above road for about five minutes.

As stated above, Article 185 of the Criminal Act was amended to “Article 157 subparag. 4 and Article 68 subparag. 3 subparag. 2 of the Road Traffic Act” in the applicable legal provisions, and applied legal provisions were amended to the effect that the subject of the judgment was changed by this court’s permission, and thus, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, there is an amendment to the indictment above.

Even if the defendant's mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and argument of mental or physical disorder are still subject to the judgment of this court.

3. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of the legal doctrine, ① the Defendant led to the confession of the facts charged in this case at the lower court, ② the victim interfering with the business was also a statement corresponding to the facts charged in this case, ③ the photograph submitted as evidence was taken by the Defendant on the road.