Defendant

All appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (i) the Defendant (misunderstanding and misunderstanding of the legal principles as to interference with the general traffic of the person on September 23, 2015; (ii) the Defendant moved from the front of the newspaper company at around 15:03 on September 23, 2015, which is the place of assembly report; (iii) the Defendant was forced to temporarily set the roadway for 5 to 10 minutes away from India at around 16:36 on September 23, 2015; and (iv) the Defendant went to the erogate for 17:50 minutes after leaving the direction of the meeting; and (v) the Defendant got home at around 18:00 on around 17:50.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts alleged in this part of the facts charged.

Since the police already installed a prior and full wall to block traffic, it is not a direct act that causes interference with traffic by the defendant, it is not recognized that the relationship between the defendant's act and the traffic obstruction is not recognized, and there is no conspiracy between the defendant and the participant in the assembly.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the relation with the person and the joint principal offender.

The punishment sentenced by the court below (one million won) is too unreasonable.

The prosecutor's (unfair sentencing) sentence (one million won in penalty) sentenced by the court below is too unhued and unfair.

Judgment

The following facts are acknowledged according to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles.

The place of assembly report was delivered in front of the tendency newspaper, but since September 23, 2015, the participants of assembly depart from the place of assembly report from around 15:03 on September 23, 2015 to move to the direction of the luminous square, the vehicle was installed on the front wall of the interesting country in the middle of the interesting country.

The participants of the assembly moved back to the front road of the interesting country, and moved ahead of the Sejong Culture Center (Evidence No. 62-68 of the evidence record). The defendant's 16:31 as well as the participants of the assembly on the same day.