All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) As to the facts charged in this case’s indictment, the lower court found Defendant 1 guilty of this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine, considering the following facts.

① On November 14, 2015, the Defendant participated in an assembly held in the lower judgment (hereinafter “instant assembly”) from around 19:00 to around 15:03 on the same day, and the installation of a garage by the police at the place of assembly at around 13:0 to 15:03 on the same day was completed, and the same day has already been impossible to pass through the vehicle, and thus, there is no relation between the Defendant’s act and the traffic obstruction.

② The Defendant, as a simple participant of the instant assembly, committed a direct act that may cause traffic obstruction on the sole basis of the fact that he/she had been engaged in the instant assembly with other participants in the assembly.

There is no awareness or intention of traffic interference.

In addition, in light of the circumstances and degree of involvement, the defendant can not be held liable for joint principal offenders with respect to public traffic obstruction.

2) The sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 5 million) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, in light of the legislative intent of Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly Act”) and Article 6(1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, in a case where an assembly or demonstration is conducted on the road after completing lawful reports pursuant to the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the road traffic is limited to a certain degree. Thus, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or carried out differently from the reported contents, and where the reported scope is not remarkably deviating from the reported scope, the road traffic was obstructed thereby.

Even if there are no special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established.

, however, that;