The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant, after lawfully participating in the instant assembly duly reported, was arrested on India to return home in accordance with the police’s dispersion order, and thus there was no intention to interfere with traffic. Since the police first obstructed the traffic of vehicles by blocking the entire road front of the participants in the assembly, it cannot be deemed that the traffic of vehicles, etc. was obstructed by the act of the Defendant or participants in the assembly.

The general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established when an assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope of the original report and thus makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through the road. The assembly in which the defendant participated is not going out of the original report scope, but is not going out by considerably deviating from the original report scope. It is difficult to view that assembly participants, including the defendant, such as the defendant, have become unable or remarkably difficult to pass through the road due to the short time of 20 minutes. Thus, the general traffic obstruction is not established.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding guilty of the facts charged.

2. The purpose of general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, road, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means, as an offense, the protected legal interest of which is the general public’s traffic safety, and the obstruction of general traffic obstruction is not so-called abstract dangerous crime that traffic is impossible or remarkably difficult, but it is impossible to pass by the general traffic, and the result of traffic obstruction is not the actual occurrence.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). In addition, the Assembly and Demonstration Act provides for the following: