Open Decision Ledger · Criminal law
Lawful reported assemblies and the elements of general obstruction
Supreme Court, July 15, 2021, 2018Do11349 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 일반교통방해
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a road assembly or demonstration was lawfully reported under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, may the charge of general obstruction of traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act arise where it departed markedly from the reported scope or gravely breached the conditions under Article 12 of that Act, and what must a participant have done for the charge to be established against that participant?
Holding
It may. Where the assembly or demonstration departed markedly from the reported scope, or gravely breached the conditions under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and thereby obstructed road traffic so that passage became impossible or manifestly difficult, the offence of general obstruction is established. It does not follow that every participant commits the offence: only a participant who joined in that departure or breach and did an act directly causing the obstruction, or who may be held liable as a co-principal by conspiracy in view of how that participant joined and how far that participant was involved.
Points at issue, verbatim
일반교통방해죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 집회 및 시위의 참가자에게 일반교통방해죄가 성립하기 위한 요건
Unofficial English translation
Whether the offense of obstruction of general traffic is established (affirmative), and the requirements for the offense of obstruction of general traffic to be established against a participant in an assembly or demonstration in such a case
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case in this part is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
실제로 그 참가자가 위와 같이 신고된 범위의 현저한 일탈 또는 조건의 중대한 위반에 가담하여 교통방해를 유발하는 직접적인 행위를 하였거나, 그렇지 아니할 경우에는 그 참가자의 참가 경위나 관여 정도 등에 비추어 그 참가자에게 공모공동정범으로서의 죄책을 물을 수 있는 경우라야 일반교통방해죄가 성립한다
Unofficial English translation
only where the participant actually engaged in a direct act causing the traffic obstruction by taking part in such a substantial departure from the notified scope or serious violation of the conditions, or, failing that, where the participant may be held criminally liable as a joint principal offender by conspiracy in light of the circumstances of, and the degree of involvement in, that participant's participation, is the offense of obstruction of general traffic established
Factors
- 당초 신고된 범위를 현저히 일탈하거나
- 같은 법 제12조에 의한 조건을 중대하게 위반하여
- 도로 교통을 방해함으로써 통행을 불가능하게 하거나 현저하게 곤란하게 하는 경우
- 집회 및 시위의 참가자에게
Unofficial English translation
• has substantially departed from the scope initially notified or
• has seriously violated the conditions imposed under Article 12 of the same Act,
• thereby obstructing road traffic so as to make passage impossible or markedly difficult
• against a participant in an assembly or demonstration
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2008. 11. 13. 선고 2006도755 판결(공2008하, 1695)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755 decided November 13, 2008 (Gong 2008 Ha, 1695)
Decisions referred to
대법원 2008. 11. 13. 선고 2006도755 판결(공2008하, 1695), 대법원 2016. 11. 10. 선고 2016도4921 판결, 대법원 2019. 12. 13. 선고 2017도19737 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where the scene was noisy and no warning broadcast could be heard clearly, what evidence can show that a participant actually grasped that the march ran counter to the reported contents?
Evidence placing the defendant in the planning of the march, or showing a connection to the organisers, would require this entry to be read again. A later Supreme Court decision revising the requirements for co-principal liability by conspiracy among assembly participants would also change this reading, as would an amendment to Article 185 of the Criminal Act or to Article 6(1) or Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “Where the scene was noisy and no warning broadcast could be heard clearly, what evidence can show that a participant actually grasped that the march ran counter to the reported contents?” vs Independent “What additional evidence would establish that a participant shared a conspiracy to obstruct traffic?”
The primary reading asks what evidence shows that a participant actually grasped the conflict with the reported contents, while the independent reading asks what evidence would show a shared conspiracy to obstruct traffic.
일반교통방해죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 집회 및 시위의 참가자에게 일반교통방해죄가 성립하기 위한 요건Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Suwon District Court, in its judgment of 28 June 2018 (2017No8417), found that the defendant had acted in an implicit and sequential conspiracy with the other participants of the rally held on 28 March 2015 at the culture square of Yeouido Park, Seoul, and had joined the march and the sit-in that blocked all lanes of Yeouido-daero for about 30 minutes, and so convicted him of the general obstruction charge. It reasoned from the defendant's own statement that he had marched just behind the leadership that he either knew traffic was being obstructed or was able to hear the repeated police warnings given as the procession entered the road.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the photographic evidence showed only that the defendant took part in the demonstration around 16:59, and that nothing showed he was connected to the organisers or knew in advance the reported scope, conditions or march plan. Given that the rally passed off comparatively peacefully with no physical clash with the police, it was also hard to conclude that he was aware, on joining, of taking part in a marked departure or a grave breach. The trial court had therefore misapprehended the law on the offence of general obstruction and on co-principals by conspiracy, with an effect on the judgment, so the guilty portion was reversed and the case remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Distinguishing conditions
- An assembly or demonstration not lawfully reported under the Assembly and Demonstration Act, since the rule rests on the fact that the report had been completed lawfully.
- Obstruction of road traffic that does not make passage impossible or manifestly difficult, so the degree of interference the Court required is not reached.
- A rally conducted within the reported scope, where the Court holds the offence does not arise unless there are special circumstances.
Record verification notes
Set the assembly against the reported scope and against each condition attached under Article 12 of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and ask separately whether passage was in fact made impossible or manifestly difficult. Then take each accused individually, and look for the acts and the involvement the Court named: participation in the departure or the breach, an act directly causing the obstruction, or material on how the person joined and how far that person was involved. Check too the conditions of the scene itself, such as the width of the road, the number of participants, the noise and what the police broadcasts could be heard to say.
From the official text
Points at issue
‘집회 및 시위에 관한 법률’에 의하여 적법한 신고를 마치고 도로에서 집회나 시위를 하였으나 당초 신고된 범위를 현저히 일탈하거나 같은 법 제12조에 의한 조건을 중대하게 위반하여 도로 교통을 방해함으로써 통행을 불가능하게 하거나 현저하게 곤란하게 하는 경우, 일반교통방해죄가 성립하는지 여부(적극) 및 이때 집회 및 시위의 참가자에게 일반교통방해죄가 성립하기 위한 요건
Unofficial English translation
Whether the offense of obstruction of general traffic is established where a person has completed lawful notification under the Assembly and Demonstration Act and held an assembly or demonstration on a road, but has substantially departed from the scope initially notified or seriously violated the conditions imposed under Article 12 of the same Act, thereby obstructing road traffic so as to make passage impossible or markedly difficult (affirmative), and the requirements for the offense of obstruction of general traffic to be established against a participant in an assembly or demonstration in such a case
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결 중 유죄 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 수원지방법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The guilty portion of the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case in this part is remanded to the Suwon District Court.
Provisions referred to
형법 제30조, 제185조, 집회 및 시위에 관한 법률 제6조 제1항, 제12조
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger