차량교통이 통제된 도로에서 진행된 집회․시위에 참가한 사람에 대한 일반교통방해죄 성립 여부-대법원 2018. 1. 24. 선고 2017도11408 판결-

The subject case reaffirms the previous position on the criterion that the simple participant in assembly and demonstration can establish the Article 185 of the Criminal Act. There are three opinions for interpretation of vague and ambiguous “other means”. First, the narrow boundary theory argued that “other means” should be interpreted in the similar degree to damage, destruction or blocking. Second, the Equivalent theory argued that “other means” should be interpreted only in the equal degree to damage, destruction or blocking. Third, the broad boundary theory argued that “other means” should be interpreted anything that can cause obstruction of traffic is possible. According to the narrow boundary theory and the Equivalent theory, the subject case is not applicable to other means, so general obstruction of traffic is not established. In order to solve the subject case, first, it is desirable to avoid the prosecution of a simple participant as a general traffic obstruction, and to review and apply the Assembly and Demonstration Act or the Road Traffic Act. Second, it is necessary to judge whether or not the general traffic obstruction is established based on the configuration requirements. Third, there is a need to reorganize the unspecified constitutional requirements of the current general traffic obstruction. If the constitutional requirements are clearly defined, there is no need to mobilize the joint-principal theory through conspiracy proposed by the Supreme Court. I think that it is enough to judge the constitutionality of the general traffic obstruction by the constitutionality alone.