All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. At the time of the instant case, Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) had already been cut off due to the installation of a passage wall by the police, and the participants in the instant assembly had obstructed the passage of delivery by the police. As such, the traffic of the participants in the assembly did not interfere with the passage of delivery.

In addition, the defendant had no intention to interfere with the general traffic because he was able to grasp the situation at the same time on the road of this case.

B. Since the defendant did not engage in a direct act causing traffic interference as a simple participant, it is unfair to apply the defendant to the crime of interference with general traffic.

B. It is reasonable for a prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and misunderstanding of legal principles) to interfere with class of neighboring schools due to noise caused by an assembly (the part on violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act which was acquitted by the first instance court). Therefore, it is likely that the right to learning may be clearly infringed when a request for protection is made on the side of the school.

It is expected that it will be.

In addition, since the notification of prohibition is effective until the cancellation, the holding of an assembly in violation of the notification of prohibition by the head of the Seoul Southern-gu Police Station constitutes an illegal assembly.

Nevertheless, the first instance court rendered not guilty of the above part on the grounds of the judgment of administrative litigation which was subsequently filed. This is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) Improper sentencing (the part concerning general traffic obstruction in which the first instance court found the Defendant guilty)’s first instance sentence (the penalty amount of KRW 800,000) is too uneased and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the first instance court, under the title “the Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion” in the judgment, states the Defendant’s assertion and its judgment in detail.