The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Progress of litigation;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty on the charge that, in collaboration with a large number of democratic class of street workers present at an assembly held in the lower judgment on November 14, 2015, the Defendant: (a) from around 15:30 to around 15:30, on the roads front of the main Samsung At the end of the Gu (old Samsung), located in 67 as of the Sejong-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul, for about 135 km as of the Sejong-gu, Seoul and the end of the hotel, it interfered with traffic by causing damage to, or by other means of, the land, water, water, or bridge; and (b) on the other hand, the Defendant sentenced the Defendant to a fine of KRW 4 million.

B. As to this, the Defendant appealed on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of sentencing, and the trial prior to the remanding of the case rejected the part on the allegation of mistake of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles among the grounds for appeal by the above Defendant, and the part on the allegation of illegality of sentencing was accepted, and the lower judgment was reversed and the Defendant sentenced to

On the other hand, the defendant appealed on the ground of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (including violation of the rules of evidence). The court of final appeal accepted the defendant's assertion and there was an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the judgment before remand

On the other hand, the judgment of the court prior to the remand was reversed.

2. Summary of reasons for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant, as a simple participant of an assembly held in the lower judgment, was merely a place indicated in the facts charged as indicated in the judgment, or a road booms on the road. As such, the Defendant committed a direct act causing traffic obstruction.

In light of the degree of involvement in the above assembly and the details of participation, it is difficult to see that it does not constitute a case where the defendant can be held liable for a crime as a joint principal offender.

2) Before the Defendant attended the above assembly, the police had already installed the walls.