All appeals by the Defendants and the Prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendants’ first-class sentence (Defendant A: 2 years of suspended sentence in August, and Defendant B: 1 year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

[In the supplementary opinion on the grounds for appeal submitted on April 26, 2016, the Defendants asserted that, around November 14, 2015, around November 15, 2015, the location of the instant case had already been controlled by the police due to the installation of a traffic lane, making the movement of vehicles impossible due to the traffic control, and thus, there was no causal relation between the Defendants’ act of occupying roads and the result of general traffic obstruction, and the Defendants’ intention of traffic obstruction is not recognized. However, the Defendants’ assertion that it was raised after the lapse of the period for submitting the grounds for appeal cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

However, even if examined ex officio, in full view of the total number of participants and places of the assembly of this case as revealed by the record, the police bottled the road as a parking wall, the developments and methods of occupying the roads of the participants in assemblies including the Defendants, and the degree of traffic interference caused by the assembly of this case and the progress before and after it, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendants’ intention and connection with the general traffic obstruction is sufficiently recognized.

(b) the first deliberation type of the inspection is too unhued and unjust;

2. We examine both the Defendants and the Prosecutor’s unfair argument in sentencing.

The Defendants conspired with the participants in the assembly to assault police officers who perform their duties by the threat of multiple force, interfered with the general traffic, and the Defendant A refused to comply with the legitimate dispersion order.

As such, the act of obstructing the performance of official duties by means of multiple force seriously deviates from the scope of fundamental rights called freedom of assembly and demonstration recognized for citizens, and thus, it is a serious criminal with a high risk of undermining the public safety and social order and impairing the public authority, and undermining the lives and bodies of police officers, and assemblies including the Defendants.