The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding and legal principles (1) misunderstanding (1) The view that the participants of the World Labor-Saving Workers’ Competition (hereinafter “Korean Labor-Saving Workers’ Competition”) in the instant case departed from the active route reported by the participants and occupied a long distance lane of 19:0 to 19:22 on the day was about 19:00 to 21:00 on the day, and therefore, there was a traffic interference due to the flow of the lanes from 19:0 to 21:00 on the day.

There is an error of misunderstanding of facts as to the determination of the person.

(2) The Defendant, as a simple participant, was at a private distance and did not engage in any direct act that may cause traffic obstruction. As such, there is no liability for a crime as a joint principal offender, and since there is already been a police wall installed prior to the Defendant’s assignment to the scene, it is not possible to pass the vehicle, and thus, there is no relation between the Defendant’s participation in the assembly and the traffic obstruction.

The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of suspended sentence in April) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles (1) As to the allegation of misunderstanding of the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, if traffic is impossible or substantially difficult as a so-called abstract dangerous crime, it shall be the number of vehicles, and the result of traffic obstruction shall not be practically caused (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). However, it cannot be said that a general traffic obstruction is established as a matter of course solely on the ground that the participant participated in an assembly and demonstration that interfered with road traffic by substantially deviating from the reported scope. However, if the participant was directly engaged in or did not do so by taking part in a significant deviation from the reported scope or a serious violation of the conditions, the participant may be liable for the crime as a joint principal offender in light of the developments leading up to the participation or involvement of the participant.