The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Even if a person is a simple participant of an assembly with a general traffic obstruction, the organizer and the participant of the demonstration jointly conducted the demonstration according to the prior invitation, and as long as functional control is recognized with the organizer and other participants, the defendant must be recognized as a comprehensive person. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor in the court below, it is difficult to see the defendant as a simple participant because the defendant participated in the assembly in the assembly systematically and systematically with other union members in the D area after receiving a public notice from the union union, and the defendant was not a mere participant. The police has installed a side wall in order to prevent the collision with the police forces as the participants of the assembly of this case exceeded the reported range, and the passage of the road was obstructed by the vehicle wall. In light of the fact that the passage of the road was obstructed in advance by the vehicle wall, such as the facts charged, it can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant was at the scene of assembly and demonstration in violation of the Act on Assembly and Demonstration, and that there was a demand for voluntary dispersion and closure declaration from that time, the Defendant could have sufficiently anticipated that the dispersion order will be made, and that the dispersion order was made through loudspeakers, and that the size of the voice or sound is clearly distinguishable from that of the broadcast of the demonstration unit, and that the Defendant could sufficiently have been seen to have been given, the fact that the Defendant failed to comply with the dispersion order even if the Defendant received the dispersion order six times as in the facts charged can be sufficiently acknowledged

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2...