The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The judgment of the court below

A. Of the facts charged in the instant case, the summary of the general traffic obstruction is as follows: (a) the Defendant, as the chairperson of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Party, was the head of the E Party, from November 14, 2015 to the 00:15th day of the same month, by occupying the two-way lanes from the Republic of Korea located in 1499 to the front day of the hotel, and driving along the two-way lanes with the participants in the assembly, thereby obstructing the traffic in collusion with the above participants in the assembly.

B. The lower court upheld the first instance judgment convicting the Defendant of this part of the charges on this part, on the ground that the Defendant did not merely participate in the instant assembly and demonstration but actively participated in the act of causing traffic obstruction in light of the following: (a) the period during which the Defendant participated in the instant assembly and demonstration was very long; and (b) the Plaintiff, as the president of the party of Gwangju City Party, urged party members to participate in the assembly in accordance with the central authority’s guidelines; and (c) the Plaintiff integrated wire ropes to remove the walls beyond participating in the demonstration and directly engaged in the act of causing traffic obstruction.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. In light of the legislative intent of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”) and Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, where a lawful report is completed under the Assembly and Demonstration Act and an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road, the traffic of the road may be restricted to any extent.

Therefore, if an assembly or demonstration is conducted within the reported scope or is conducted differently from the reported contents, the reported scope is not considerably deviating from the reported scope, resulting in interference with road traffic.

Even if there are no special circumstances, the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is not established.

However, the scope of the original report on the assembly or demonstration.