The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal was a prohibited assembly, which goes through the broad language square on the day of the instant case, and the participants in the assembly were in line with the police for a prohibited assembly, which has been set up in the form of three times for the participants in the assembly, which has been in line with the police, and the Defendant occupied the road as a person who has been working as the head of the I Union M division, and moved into the road and went into operation with other participants in the assembly, while recognizing the illegality of the assembly going into operation in the form of three times, the Defendant interfered with traffic by occupying the road directly with other participants in the assembly.

may be appointed by a person.

Although the court below found the defendant not guilty, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below 1) In light of Article 6 (1) of the Assembly and Demonstration Act and its legislative purport, in a case where a lawful report is completed under the Assembly and Demonstration Act and an assembly or demonstration on the road is conducted on the road, the road traffic is restricted to a certain degree. Thus, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or it was conducted differently from the reported contents, if the reported scope is not considerably 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, in a case where the assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope of the original report, or makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by interfering with road traffic by seriously violating the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, such assembly or demonstration constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). In such a case, the scope of the initial report is considerably deviating from the scope of the original report, or the traffic is significantly in violation of the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.