All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant (1) 1 did not commit any act interfering with traffic, and there was no intention to interfere with traffic, and ② Defendant’s act was dismissed as a legitimate act and thus, the judgment of the court below which found Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles, or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(2) In light of the fact that the defendant is a simple participant in an unreasonable sentencing and is not under economic circumstances, the lower court’s punishment (five million won of a fine) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence of the lower court is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On the part of the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (1) The purpose of the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to the land, road, etc. or interference with traffic by other means, which are crimes of which the general public's legal interest is protected. On the other hand, in a case where an assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope of the original report, or seriously deviates from the scope of the original report, or seriously interferes with road traffic by seriously violating the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, the general traffic obstruction is established.

In addition, general traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime where traffic is impossible or significantly difficult, and it is not necessary to have the result of traffic obstruction actually occurred.

(2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the foregoing case’s health team and the evidence, namely, the Defendant occupied the road along with other participants of the demonstration at the time, and occupied the road, and the Defendant’s number of persons, such as the Defendant, occupy the main road in Seoul Metropolitan City for a considerable period of time.