Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

In spite of the fact that anyone does not damage, interfere with traffic by other means, or by other means, on November 14, 2015, the Defendant participated in the National Democratic Workers’ Union General Assembly (Korean Democratic Labor Union General) and the Korean Farmers’ General Assembly which was organized by 58 organizations, such as the Korean Farmers’ Federation, etc., in the third class, at around 13:50 on November 14, 2015, the Defendant interfered with traffic by occupying part of the lower line as the third class without permission by occupying it along with the name demonstration team in which he/she participated in the above assembly.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Report on internal investigation (the details of suspicion A of the suspected person), report on internal investigation (verification and attachment of evidential data with respect to the suspected person A), each investigation report (additional analysis of evidential data) and investigation report (Attachment to the closure screen, such as NAV map);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a petition;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act, Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines concerning the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the argument: (a) the Defendant participated in the instant assembly and participated in the instant assembly at the lower rank as of the date stated in the facts charged; (b) it constitutes a case where the reported scope is not significantly deviating from the reported scope even if the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or it was conducted differently from the reported details; and (b) even if the reported scope was remarkably deviating from the reported scope.

Even if at the time of the occurrence of the instant case, the lower-lane as the Defendant was in the state where the passage of the vehicle was impossible due to the motor vehicles parked in the state and stopped, and the traffic volume at the time of the occurrence of the instant case was not high, and thus, the result of traffic obstruction did not occur.