All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) In order to establish a crime of interference with general traffic by a participant at an assembly (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles), or a simple participant of a demonstration, Defendant 1 should be able to take charge of the crime of interference with traffic under the intent of the participant to take part in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a significant violation of the conditions, or in light of the developments leading up to, or the degree of involvement in, the participation.

However, the Defendant was merely a member of the Korean Teachers’ Union (hereinafter “former Teachers’ Union”). On March 28, 2015, the Defendant’s assembly was organized and reported by the Joint Stopover Headquarters for the Strengthening of Public Pension (hereinafter “Public Pension”) as a separate organization with the previous curriculum, and the Defendant did not assume any position or role in the public administration.

Therefore, the defendant cannot establish a crime of interference with general traffic.

2) On May 1, 2015, with respect to the violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles), the assembly participants were excluded from the application of Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), since the participants did not exercise violence or physical power as an urgent and contingent assembly without a prior plan.

Even if the above provisions apply, if the method of assembly was met with peace and was short of 30 minutes, and considering the fact that the purpose of assembly and the place of assembly are closely related, the defendant's act does not constitute a constituent element of Article 11 subparagraph 1 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.

Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act does not apply to "a place within 100 meters from the boundary of a political party of the National Assembly" as a place where the National Assembly voluntarily manages the headquarters of the National Assembly.

The Defendant did not know that the relevant assembly violated Article 11 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act at the time of participation in the assembly.

3) Sentencing is unfair.