All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) In fact, the Defendant did not have any awareness that the place of the assembly of this case or the assembly of this case was driven or occupied while participating in the demonstration of this case, and thus did not have any intention to interfere with general traffic.

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

B. The sentence imposed by the prosecutor by the court below is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the provisions and legislative intent of the Act on the Assembly and Demonstration regarding the Defendant’s misunderstanding of facts, in a case where a lawful report is completed and an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road, the traffic of the road will be restricted to a certain extent. Therefore, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or where the reported contents were conducted differently from the reported contents, thereby causing interference with traffic on the road.

Even if there are no special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established, unless there are special circumstances. However, in a case where the assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope of the original report, or interferes with road traffic significantly violating the conditions under the provisions of the Act, thereby making it impossible or significantly difficult to pass through by causing interference with road traffic, general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant’s act of demonstration, along with approximately 5,00 persons who participated in the assembly from around 17:18 to 18:00 on the day of the instant case with approximately 5,00 persons, constitutes an act of interference with road traffic by remarkably deviating from the original report scope, and in view of the details and method of the demonstration, etc.