Supreme Court: "No Traffic Obstruction Charges for Simple Participants in Lane March Protests"

Supreme Court, Seocho-gu, Seoul. Photo by Honam Moon munonam@

[Asia Economy Reporter Kim Daehyun] The Supreme Court has ruled that merely participating in a protest that caused traffic congestion by marching on the road does not constitute a punishable offense for general traffic obstruction unless the individual led the overall protest or had specific knowledge of its progress.

On the 9th, the Supreme Court's 3rd Division (Presiding Justice Ahn Cheolsang) overturned the lower court's ruling that sentenced public official A to a fine of 1.5 million won on charges of general traffic obstruction and violation of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, and remanded the case to the Suwon District Court.

Previously, A, a member of the public officials' union, was prosecuted for participating in a protest against the revision of the Public Officials Pension Act in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, in March 2015. Along with about 5,000 union members, he marched on Yeouidaero road, obstructing traffic in the area for about 30 minutes. He was also charged for participating in a protest held within 100 meters of the National Assembly building in May of the same year, opposing the passage of the pension law amendment and failing to comply with police dispersal orders.

The first trial found A guilty on all charges and sentenced him to a fine of 3 million won. The court noted, "At the time, the police broadcast multiple announcements labeling the march as 'unauthorized,' but participants occupied the road, causing significant traffic congestion."

However, the second trial acquitted A of the Assembly and Demonstration Act violation and reduced the fine to 1.5 million won. This was due to the Constitutional Court's ruling of unconstitutionality on the Assembly and Demonstration Act provision that prohibited assemblies within 100 meters of the National Assembly following the first trial.

The Supreme Court ordered a retrial and judgment on the general traffic obstruction charge, indicating it should be acquitted as well. The court stated, "The defendant appears to have merely participated in the assembly and there is no evidence that he directly engaged in acts that actively caused traffic obstruction," adding, "It is difficult to consider that he bears criminal responsibility as a co-conspirator in general traffic obstruction."

Furthermore, the court said, "It is not possible to specifically verify the circumstances or degree of the defendant's involvement in the assembly, and given the chaotic scene, it is hard to conclude beyond reasonable doubt that he heard the police announcements," and added, "The lower court erred in its legal interpretation regarding general traffic obstruction and co-conspirator liability, which affected its judgment."

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.