The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant has a public notice of the judgment of innocence against the defendant.

1. The prosecutor's evidence alone submitted by the gist of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant committed a crime of interference with general traffic at the time and place stated in the judgment of the defendant.

Although it is insufficient to recognize it, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts guilty.

2. Determination

A. On April 24, 2015, the Defendant participated in the “Korean Workers’ Republic of Labor” reported by the Korean Federation of the Democratic Workers’ Unions (hereinafter “Korean Workers’ Federation”) and “Workers Workers’ Republic of Korea Workers’ Republic of Korea Workers’ Republic of Korea,” and conducted activities from around 18:13 of the same day to 18:36 of the same day, and with 3,000 other participants in other assemblies and 1 of the Seoul Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul and interfered with the traffic of vehicles by making a demonstration.

Accordingly, the defendant conspired with the above participants in the assembly and interfered with the traffic by land.

B. The lower court determined that the Defendant constituted a crime of interference with general traffic as indicated in the lower judgment on the ground of the following: (a) the date and time of the charge was corrected from April 24, 2015 to April 18:34, 2015 on the basis of the visual recording among the characteristics of the NDM in a photo CD 1695 x 354 file, which were presented as evidence, on the basis of the visual recording.

(c)

(1) In a case where an assembly or demonstration significantly deviates from the scope of the original report, or interferes with road traffic by seriously violating the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act (hereinafter “the Assembly and Demonstration Act”), thereby making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through due to the interference with road traffic, it constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). In such a case, the first report scope is considerably deviating from the original report scope, or interfering with road traffic significantly violating the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, thereby making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass through the assembly and demonstration.

such participants, as a matter of course, shall be all such participants.