The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that he temporarily finite finites in the old world before the Jongno-gu modern construction, but the movement between them deviates from the heat, thereby using the delivery.

At the time of this case, since the assembly of this case occupied only three lanes, not all lanes, which make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass the vehicle due to this, and there was no perception that the Defendant interfered with traffic due to his own act.

B. Legal principles are that the act of interference with traffic inevitably occurred in the course of an assembly or demonstration is not subject to punishment. Since the Assembly and Demonstration Act only punishs a person who hosts the act of escaping from the reported section, it is not allowed to punish the defendant, who is only a simple participant in the assembly, by applying the general traffic obstruction to the defendant.

(c)

The sentencing sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to land, road, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means, as a crime involving the protection of the general public’s legal interest in traffic safety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1926, Jul. 10, 2014). Moreover, interference with general traffic is a crime of so-called abstract risk, and the traffic interference is impossible or considerably difficult, and the traffic interference is not likely to occur, and the result of traffic interference is not practically generated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4662, Dec. 14, 2007). The following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the assembly, including the Defendant at the time of the instant case.