beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant asserted misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles only stayed in the three-dimensionals after the time of the instant case, but did not continue to do so. Thus, since the police completely controlled the daily traffic from the day immediately preceding the instant case, there was no room to obstruct traffic due to the road occupation of the Defendant, etc. from the beginning to the day of the instant case, and therefore, the Defendant’s ordinary traffic obstruction act constitutes an impossible crime.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
B. The lower court’s sentence of KRW 1,00,000 (fine 1,00,000) against the Defendant claiming unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. According to Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the term "auction" means an act of a group of people's acts of driving at a place where the general public can freely pass, such as roads, squaress, parks, etc. with a common purpose, exerting influence on the opinion of many unspecified persons, or suppressing them by showing power or power. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it can be recognized that some participants of assemblies recorded in the facts constituting the crime of the court below, including the defendant, including the defendant, occupy roads to enter the city with the audience after the completion of the assembly, and continued to occupy roads around the village until they come beyond the self-regulation. Such acts by the defendant, etc., are conducted as part of collective expression with the common purpose, and thus, such acts by the defendant, etc. are deemed as part of the collective expression with the common purpose.
In addition, an impossible crime refers to a case where there is no possibility of a result or infringement of legal interests due to the nature of the crime. The Supreme Court sentenced July 26, 2007.