The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is sufficiently recognized that the Seoul National Police Agency’s notification of the conditions for maintaining traffic order prepared under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act on August 26, 201 by the Commissioner General of the Seoul National Police Agency on August 26, 2011 is a legitimate notification to the organizer, and that the Defendant occupied the lane along with other participants in the demonstration and obstructed traffic by driving along the lane.

2. Determination

(a) No person who is a summary of the facts charged shall damage or fire a road, waterway, or bridge, or obstruct traffic by other means;

On August 27, 2011, from around 22:05 to around 00:30 on August 27, 201, the Defendant participated in the "Fourth D" demonstration related to the Hanjin Heavy Industries, which was not reported together with 2,500 persons, and started from the Cheongdong in Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul from around 22:05 to around 22:0:30 on August 28, 201, the Defendant occupied the lanes of the Bank of Korea to the independent text through the Bank of Korea’s private distance, sublims, and the Seodaemun-gu, thereby hindering the flow of vehicles by creating and implementing relief such as "ad hoc and non-regular workers."

Accordingly, the defendant conspired with the participants in the assembly and interfered with general traffic.

B. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that it is difficult to deem that the notice of the conditions for maintaining traffic order under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the notice of this case”) under the name of the director of the Seoul Local Police Agency on August 26, 2011 was lawfully notified to the organizer of the instant demonstration and the assembly, and that the instant demonstration was considerably exceeded the reported scope, and that it was difficult to deem that the Defendant had an intention to commit serious violation of the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

C. (1) According to Article 12(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and Article 12(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the head of the competent police authority shall hold the judgment of the party.