The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty

1. Facts charged and the progress of litigation

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: Defendant C had been employed as the chief of the Eno-F branch of the Eno-F branch under D; Defendant B had been employed as the chief of the above Eno-F branch; Defendant B had been employed at the Fansung factory; Defendant A was a professor at G University; Defendant A was a professor at G University at around 15:00 on the RR date with the members of the F branch branch in front of the hotel located in the Jung-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office, Jung-gu, Seoul and 18:50 along with the members of the F branch in the demonstration zone at the front of the police wall installed in front of the Jung-gu, Seoul, Jung-gu, Seoul and obstructed the traffic along with the participants at the front of the road.

B. Based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court found the Defendants guilty on the grounds that the Defendants committed a direct act causing traffic obstruction by significantly deviating from the scope of the report by occupying three lanes with the participants in the assembly at the same time as the participants in the assembly, in a situation where the intentions were formed by impliedly and implicitly with other participants in the assembly.

As to this, the Defendants appealed on the grounds of unfair sentencing, on the grounds of mistake of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and unfair sentencing, the prosecutor appealed each on the grounds of unfair sentencing, and the trial prior to remand rejected all the grounds for appeal by the Defendants and the prosecutors, and dismissed

The Defendants filed a final appeal on the grounds of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles. The Supreme Court accepted the Defendants’ assertion and reversed the judgment prior to the remanding of case on the grounds that there was an error of mistake or misunderstanding of legal principles

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) A of the erroneous fact-finding Defendant had participated in the instant assembly at around the time of the participation of the Defendant, the participants in the assembly and the police, etc., and the Defendant was in a state that the vehicle could not remarkably pass through due to the assembly and the police, and the Defendant is a professor of G University and T University and students as