The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of two million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. (1) Defendant (1) did not have any direct act interfering with traffic, and Defendant did not have any conspiracy or intention to obstruct traffic due to the assembly or demonstration of this case as a simple participant.

(2) The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too uneasible and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In light of the relevant legal principles and legislative intent of the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts (1) in a case where an assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or was conducted differently from the reported contents, barring any special circumstance, in a case where traffic obstruction is not significantly exceeded the reported scope, it cannot be deemed that general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established unless there are special circumstances. However, in a case where such assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the reported scope, or seriously interferes with road traffic, thereby making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by interfering with road traffic due to its serious violation of the conditions under the provisions of the Act, general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). General traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, where traffic is impossible or substantially difficult, the traffic is as soon as possible, and the result of traffic obstruction is not practically necessary.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, the part of the Plaintiff’s act of causing interference with traffic is deemed to constitute a crime of interference with general traffic as a matter of course solely on the ground that the Plaintiff participated in an assembly or demonstration that substantially deviates from the reported scope and thus substantially deviates from the reported scope, and thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s act of causing interference with traffic by taking part in such assembly or demonstration.