All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles are merely a simple participant in an assembly, and thus, the traffic of the road was significantly difficult.

There was no awareness or invitation about the interference with traffic with other participants in the assembly by clearly leaving the reported conference route.

The defendant's act is a legitimate act that is guaranteed by the freedom of assembly under the Constitution and that does not go against social norms and is not illegal.

(2) The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s (unfair sentencing)’s sentence is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On May 17, 2014, the Defendant’s mistake of the fact, misapprehension of the legal doctrine, and misapprehension of the legal doctrine regarding traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act (1) is an offense for which the protection of general public’s legal interests is against traffic safety, and the purpose of punishing any act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to land, road, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means. The general traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, which is impossible or considerably difficult to pass, and the traffic obstruction is not likely to occur, and the result of traffic obstruction is not practically realized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). In addition, in light of the provisions and legislative intent of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, in a case where legitimate reports are completed on the road, the traffic restriction is inevitable, and thus, the traffic obstruction or demonstration was considerably different from the reported scope of the road.