The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of four million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In relation to erroneous determination of facts, there was no conspiracy or intention on the part of the Defendant with regard to general traffic obstruction as of May 24, 2014 and April 18, 2015, that the Defendant’s act did not interfere with traffic, and that as a simple participant did not know that the progress of the assembly or demonstration in the instant case was exceeded the reported scope and that there was no traffic obstruction.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (one year of imprisonment with labor for six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the relevant legal principles and legislative intent of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (1) in a case where an assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or was conducted differently from the reported contents, barring any special circumstance, in a case where traffic obstruction is not significantly exceeded the reported scope, it cannot be deemed that general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established unless there are special circumstances. However, in a case where such assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the reported scope, or seriously interferes with road traffic, thereby making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by interfering with road traffic due to its serious violation of the conditions under the provisions of the Act, general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755 Decided November 13, 2008, etc.). However, the general traffic obstruction is not established as a matter of course solely on the ground that a participant participated in an assembly or demonstration that substantially deviates from the reported scope and interfered with road traffic, and in fact, the participant engaged in a direct act that causes traffic obstruction by taking part in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a serious violation of the said conditions, or in such a case, if the participant is not so, he/she may be held liable for a crime as a co-principal in light of the participant’s circumstances and degree of participation.

November 25, 2004