Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The decision of the court below is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles as to the mistake of facts and the obstruction of general traffic and the recognition of public relations as follows.

Defendant, on November 14, 2015, committed a direct act that may cause traffic obstruction solely on the ground that he was in the vicinity of the Sauri Sari Island around 16:52, 2015.

shall not be deemed to exist.

At around 16:31 on the same day, there is no relation between the defendant's act and the result of traffic obstruction as it is impossible for the defendant to pass by the vehicle, and the defendant cannot be recognized as a public contest relationship with the simple participant.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (700,000 won) is too unreasonable.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (700,000 won) is too unhued and unfair.

In light of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and its legislative purport as to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, in a case where a lawful report is completed under the Assembly and Demonstration Act and an assembly or demonstration on the road is conducted on the road, the road traffic has to be restricted to a certain extent. Thus, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or conducted differently from the reported contents, if the reported scope is not considerably deviating from the reported scope, the road traffic has been obstructed thereby.

Even if there are no special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established.

However, if such assembly or demonstration deviates from the scope of the original report or seriously 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, it constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic (see Supreme Court Decision 2016Do4921, Nov. 10, 2016; Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008).