All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On May 1, 2013, the Defendant took part in the “G” (hereinafter referred to as the “instant assembly”) held by the Federation of the National Democratic Labor Union (hereinafter referred to as the “National Labor Union”) on May 1, 2013, and took part in the “G” (hereinafter referred to as the “G”) held in the front square of the F, which was held on May 1, 2013, and was only on the road front of the J hotel near the F, which was a wedding place after the assembly, and the police set up a wall on the road to interfere with traffic.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the above act of the defendant, merely a simple participant, constitutes the damage, fire, or any other similar method as stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Code, and that it directly caused the impossibility or significant difficulty in traffic.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, at the time of the case, the defendant did not have any intention to obstruct traffic.

B) The Defendant’s general traffic obstruction crime is a justifiable act that does not violate the social norms, and thus does not constitute a crime because it is justified.

2) With respect to a crime of violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the dispersion order written in the facts charged is not a case in which the direct risk of the other party’s legal interest or public peace and order has not been clearly brought about, and thus, an incidental law

Even if the dispersion order is lawful, the defendant did not have an intention to commit a crime in violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

B. In light of the fact that the Defendant 1 supports the mother in a public rental apartment, and that the Defendant is in profoundly against the Defendant’s act of misunderstanding at the time of the instant case, the sentence (3 million won) sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2) Each of the instant crimes committed by the public prosecutor is moving to the above J hotel rather than the place of assembly reported by the Defendant and continuing to hold a meeting.