The part concerning Defendant B, G, and H in the judgment of the first instance shall be reversed, respectively.

Defendant

B, G, and H are not guilty. Prosecutors.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor (misunderstanding of facts against Defendant C), Defendant C conspired with other participants in the demonstration to occupy the road, etc., and can sufficiently recognize the fact that it obstructs traffic by occupying the road.

B. Defendant B, G, and H (i.e., mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles) Defendant G was arrested while waiting for customers as an acting engineer, and the demonstration was in the vicinity of the lux calendar, and the situation was unsatisfing, and did not participate in the assembly.

Since the Defendants merely go through delivery, it cannot be deemed that there was an explicit and implicit communication between the participants of other demonstrations to the extent that the co-principal of general traffic obstruction is established.

The act of walking over the police in line with the direction of the police during the assembly does not constitute a constituent element of a general traffic obstruction under the Criminal Act.

Even if some of the defendants walk a road, the Road Traffic Act should take precedence over the application.

At the time of the instant case, the police already controlled traffic, thereby constituting an impossible crime.

Defendants’ act constitutes legitimate act.

B. The first instance of the unfair sentencing decision (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Examining the evidence on the prosecutor’s assertion of mistake of facts in light of the record, it is justifiable to conclude that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor only for the same reasons as the first instance court stated in the facts charged cannot be deemed to have been proven without reasonable doubt as to the fact that the defendant C conspired with other participants in the demonstration as stated in the facts charged by occupying the road.

The prosecutor's assertion of mistake is without merit.

B. As to Defendant B, G, and H’s assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, Defendant B’s summary of the facts charged was from the roads near the Jung-gu Seoul Jungdong around May 27, 2008, and Defendant G around May 23, 2008.