The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The Defendant, as a simple participant at an assembly, was merely a simple participant at an assembly, who is standing alone or standing on the road as stated in the facts charged. As such, the Defendant committed a direct act that may interfere with traffic.

In light of the degree of involvement and the circumstances leading up to participation, it is difficult to see that the defendant's conspiracy is not a case where the criminal liability as a co-principal can be applied.

2) Since the Defendant was unaware of the scope of the report, etc. of the assembly, there was no intention on the part of the Defendant that the assembly or demonstration clearly exceeded the bounds of the initial report, or seriously violated the conditions for maintaining traffic order.

3) Prior to the Defendant’s participation in the assembly, there was no vehicle traffic at the same place as at the time the police had already installed a garage.

There is no relation between the defendant's participation in the assembly and the result of traffic obstruction.

Although the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence of the lower court (an amount of four million won) that is unfair in sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misapprehension of the legal principles on factual mistake or misapprehension of the legal principles 1) The interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, where traffic is impossible or substantially difficult, and the result of traffic obstruction is not likely to occur (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005, etc.). However, it cannot be said that the interference with general traffic is established as a matter of course solely on the ground that the participant participated in an assembly and demonstration that substantially deviates from the reported scope, thereby obstructing traffic by taking part in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a significant violation of the conditions.