All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles: Defendant 1 had already been obstructed by a police wall, and the Defendant had temporarily been on the road while driving over the road, and was on the road to assist the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant did not have any intention to interfere with traffic, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act.

2) Improper sentencing: The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the amount of KRW 800,000) is too heavy.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too minor.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts, the purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to land, road, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means, and the obstruction of traffic in general is so-called abstract risk crime that traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic interference is not likely to occur (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). In addition, in light of the legislative purport of Article 6(1) and legislative purport of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, where an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road after completing a lawful report, the traffic restriction is inevitable to a certain extent if it is conducted within the reported scope, or if it is considerably different from reported details, the traffic interference is not interfered with the road.

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, the assembly or demonstration significantly deviates from the scope of the original report or Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.