All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) Fact misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant did not actively commit an act of cutting off the scope of the report of the assembly and obstructing the traffic by cutting off another participant of an old demonstration and walking on the road.

When the defendant was on a road, traffic has been prevented by the side walls installed by the police.

There is no relation between the defendant's act and the result of traffic obstruction.

Among many participants in assemblies, indictment by selecting the accused for interference with general traffic is abuse of public prosecution power.

2) The punishment of the lower court is too heavy.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence to the lower court is too minor.

2. Determination

A. In light of the provisions and legislative intent of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, “The Assembly and Demonstration Act” and “The Assembly and Demonstration Act, if the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or was conducted differently from the reported contents, thereby causing interference with road traffic.

Even if there are no special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established. However, in a case where the assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope of the original report, or interferes with road traffic by seriously violating the conditions under the provisions of the Act, thereby making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through, barring any special circumstances, it constitutes a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). General traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, which is impossible or considerably difficult to pass, and the result of traffic obstruction is not a practical occurrence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005).