The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the charge of interference with general traffic among the facts charged in the case of mistake of facts, it is not a crime of occupying the road of this case, which was duly reported and held during the demonstration of this case.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the witness E, F’s statement, inquiry of any fact, reply, assembly report, notification of conditions for maintaining traffic order, telephone call details, etc. in this court’s legally adopted judgment and the court below’s decision on the assertion of mistake of facts, it appears that the G Trade Union (hereinafter “G”) as the organizer of the outdoor assembly of this case (hereinafter “auction”) had been aware of not only 50-60 assemblies or demonstrations annually, but also the fact that the instant demonstration is subject to the notification of prohibition or restriction as an outdoor demonstration at night. In fact, around August 25, 201, the Seoul Local Police Agency prohibited the progress of the demonstration on the road of this case in order to maintain traffic order, and it can be recognized that the notification of prohibition was delivered to G around August 26, 2011, which was the transfer of the instant demonstration, the Defendant’s act constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant participated in the instant assembly for the withdrawal of the dismissed worker who has no interest in the Defendant’s dismissal, and the number of times is limited to once. However, the lower court imposed a fine (700,000 won) requested by a summary order by taking into account the above favorable circumstances as above, and considering all the sentencing conditions of the Defendant’s character, character, age, motive and circumstance of the instant crime, and circumstances after the crime, etc., including the Defendant’s criminal records having been sentenced once to a suspended sentence due to the same kind of crime, the sentence imposed by the lower court cannot be deemed to be unreasonable.

3. Conclusion.