The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Of the facts charged in the instant case.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles (A) Article 10 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act infringes on the freedom of assembly and demonstration, and is unconstitutional against the prohibition of prior permission under Article 21(2) of the Constitution. As such, among the facts charged in the instant case, it is not guilty of violating the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

(B) Article 185 of the Criminal Act provides for "other methods" in Article 185 of the Criminal Act is contrary to the principle of no punishment without the law (the principle of clarity) because it does not impose any limitation on the form of traffic obstruction. Article 185 of the Criminal Act provides that the freedom of physical movement using vehicles shall take precedence over the freedom of physical movement or the freedom of assembly and demonstration under the relevant provisions of the Road Traffic Act or the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and thus, it infringes on the freedom of physical movement and the freedom of assembly and demonstration by walking in accordance with the system of fundamental rights, and it violates the principle of proportionality and the principle of excessive prohibition, as it violates the principle of proportionality and the principle of excessive prohibition, since Article 185 of the Criminal Act is unconstitutional, it does not constitute a crime against the Defendant's general traffic obstruction and demonstration, as stated in the facts charged in this case, since it does not constitute a crime against the Defendant's general traffic obstruction by applying Article 185 of the Criminal Act or any other method of general traffic obstruction to the Defendant.

3. At the time of the Defendant’s participation in the demonstration of this case, the Defendant had already been prohibited or restricted by the police from passing the vehicle on the part of the class. Therefore, the Defendant’s participation in the demonstration was impossible.