The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, at the time of the instant case, expressed his intention to see that the Defendant had a common intention to occupy the former lane, as it is in accord with the empirical rule, by showing the attitude that other participants in the assembly moved along with the road to support it for a considerable time when he moved in the former lane.

Nevertheless, the first instance court which acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged has erred by misapprehending the legal principles on joint principal offenders and by misapprehending the facts.

B. In view of the fact that the portion on which the first instance court acquitted the Defendant of unreasonable sentencing should be reversed, the sentencing of the first instance court (one million won of fine) is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the misapprehension of legal principles and the assertion of mistake of facts, on May 19, 2012 of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant was within the two-lane range reported with respect to assembly and demonstration, and the Defendant did not have conspired with other participants in the assembly and demonstration. In light of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance and the evidence submitted, a thorough examination of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance compared with the allegations of the Defendant, the Defendant committed a direct act causing traffic obstruction by remarkably deviating from the reported scope for the same reason as the first instance court stated in detail.

Since it is difficult to recognize that the participants of other assemblies participated in the crime of traffic obstruction as co-principals or co-principals, this part of the charges is justified, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as to co-principals asserted by the prosecutor.

Therefore, the prosecutor's above assertion is without merit.

B. Furthermore, there is no error of law in the part on which the first instance court acquitted the Defendant as above, and as to the sentencing of the guilty portion among the facts charged in the instant case, the background, motive, and motive leading up to the instant case.