All appeals filed by the defendant and prosecutor are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1) misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles as to the facts charged in the instant case (hereinafter “instant demonstration”).

A) The Defendant was present at the demonstration site or with the demonstration team and did not interfere with traffic. Even based on photographs submitted by the Prosecutor as evidence, the demonstration cost, including the Defendant, is limited to 3 and 4 lanes, and the remainder 1 and 2 lanes are being carried out smoothly. On the site at the time of the instant case, even based on the testimony of the Seoul Office I and the police E, the vehicle was fixed, and thus, it is unreasonable to recognize the interference with general traffic to this extent. Although the Defendant was called in the vicinity of the demonstration site, it was for the JJ branch in the vicinity of the demonstration site, the Defendant was for the promise of unfair sentencing. The other evidence submitted by the Prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize the facts charged.

B. Prosecutor - The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is somewhat minor.

2. Determination

A. 1) misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not require any legal punishment in a co-offender relationship that two or more persons jointly process for a crime, but only combines the intent to realize the crime by combining two or more persons jointly processing a certain crime. Although there was no process of the whole conspiracy, if the combination of the intent is made in order or impliedly through several persons, the conspiracy relationship is established. As long as such conspiracy was made, even if those who did not directly participate in the act of the commission are held liable for criminal liability as a co-principal for the other co-principal's act, and such conspiracy may be acknowledged by the circumstantial facts and empirical rules (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do5494, Dec. 24, 2004).