All appeals by the defendant and the prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles were the simple participant of the assembly of this case, and the Defendant had been under control of the vehicle due to the installation of a vehicle wall by the police at the time of the Defendant’s arrival at the time of the assembly of this case.

Thus, the passage of a large road has become impossible or considerably difficult.

Therefore, there is no relation between the defendant's act and traffic interference, and in light of the circumstances and degree of the defendant's participation in the assembly of this case, the defendant cannot be held liable as a joint principal offender.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (an amount of one million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The Prosecutor’s sentence is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles 1) Any interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, where traffic is impossible or substantially difficult, and the result of traffic interference is not practically likely to occur (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). However, it cannot be said that a interference with general traffic is established as a matter of course solely on the ground that the participant participated in an assembly and demonstration that substantially deviates from the reported scope and interfered with traffic, but in fact, if the participant was involved in a direct act that causes traffic interference by taking part in a significant deviation or serious violation of the reported scope or the degree of involvement therein, the interference with general traffic is duly established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5280, Nov. 15, 2004).