The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor’s summary of the grounds for appeal, the Commissioner General of the Seoul Regional Police Agency may recognize the Defendant’s intentional act of interfering with traffic by occupying and driving along the lane in violation of the aforementioned conditions and interfering with traffic flow in violation of the aforementioned conditions, on August 26, 201, by notifying the organizer of the conditions for maintaining traffic order prepared pursuant to Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”).

2. Determination

A. The Defendant, from around 14:00 on August 27, 201, attended a democratic union member and members of the non-governmental organization from around 14:00, and participated in an assembly related to the E-management division of labor and management, which was held by 3,500 members of a democratic union and the non-governmental organization, and obstructed traffic on land, such as interfering with the participants of the above assembly on August 27, 201 in collusion with the aforementioned participants on August 27, 2011, occupying four lanes in the direction of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Western Police Agency located in the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Central Police Agency, Seodaemun-gu, Seoul and making it impossible for the Defendant to pass through the general public.

B. The lower court, based on the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, found that the notice of the condition for maintaining traffic order under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the notice of this case”) under the name of the Commissioner General of the Seoul Regional Police Agency on August 26, 2011 was duly notified to the organizer of the instant demonstration and the assembly.

It is difficult to recognize that the instant demonstration was considerably exceeded the reported scope, and there was an intentional act on the Defendant that he seriously violated the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

For the reason that it is difficult to see it, not guilty was pronounced.

(c)

당 심의 판단 ⑴ 이 사건 교통질서 유지를 위한 조건 통보가 유효한 지 여부 ㈎ 집 시법 제 12조 제 1 항 및 집시법 시행령 제 12조 제 2 항에 의하면, 관할 경찰관 서장은 대통령령으로 정하는 주요 도시의 주요 도로에서의 집회 또는 시위에 대하여 교통...