The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) The Defendant, as a simple participant of the instant assembly, did not have any intention to obstruct traffic as a mere participant of the instant assembly, and did not conspired with other participants in the assembly to commit a crime of interference with traffic.

In addition, since the police had already installed a wall before the defendant was present at the meeting, the passage of the vehicle was completely controlled, it does not interfere with the traffic due to the defendant's participation in the meeting.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of judgment.

2) The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor (unfair sentencing) by the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Ex officio determination

A. In a case where the first instance court found the defendant guilty only for a part of the facts charged which is a simple crime, even if the defendant appealed, the appellate court may decide on the part not guilty. In such a case, the appellate court found the defendant guilty of the above acquittal portion, thereby violating the principle of prohibition of disadvantageous alteration to the appellate court's judgment, or misapprehending the legal principles on the scope of the appellate court's judgment.

The court below acknowledged only the fact that the defendant participated in the assembly of this case from 14:00 to 18:50 on the ground that there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact that the defendant participated in the assembly of this case from 14:00 and 16:10, and judged to the effect that part of the defendant was acquitted. The court below appealed against the judgment of the court below on the ground that the defendant was erroneous, erroneous, and unfair sentencing, and the prosecutor appealed only on the ground that the sentencing was unfair, but the defendant appealed on the ground that it was improper. The court below ex officio in accordance with the above legal principles.