logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.14 2015노2304
일반교통방해
Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It is unreasonable to punish a simple participant of an assembly or demonstration as a obstruction of general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act by misunderstanding legal principles, to excessively restrict the freedom of assembly.

In addition, temporary standing on roads in the course of one assembly and demonstration does not fall under the elements of general traffic obstruction in Article 185 of the Criminal Code, since it does not fall under the requirements of general traffic obstruction.

B. Fact-misunderstanding that participants in the assembly of this case passed the roadway is due to the act of the police that obstructed and blocked delivery, and the roadway at the time and there was no vehicle traffic itself due to the blocking by the police.

There was no perception or intent that the defendant will impede traffic.

(c)

The sentence (1,000,000 won) sentenced by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an assembly or demonstration conducted within the reported scope or conducted differently from the reported contents, the road traffic was obstructed due to the failure to deviate from the reported scope.

Even if there are no special circumstances, general traffic obstruction shall not be deemed established.

However, the Supreme Court's established precedents (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008, etc.) that if an assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope of the initial report and thus makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by interfering with general traffic, such assembly or demonstration constitutes a crime of interference with traffic. Thus, this part of the Defendant's assertion on a different premise is rejected.

B. (1) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the instant court, the Defendant initially held an outdoor assembly following the combination of the participants in the instant assembly with implied doctors, in light of the following circumstances.

arrow