When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The Defendant, from May 2015 to April 23, 2016, was used by residents of the village who were in the wife C from May 2015 to April 23, 2016 as farmland.

D In the access road connected to the road, a steel fence (not less than 4m wide, about 2m long) continued to be installed and obstructed the traffic of community residents, including E, to prevent the passage of the road.

In light of the records of this case, there is no obstacle to the defendant's exercise of his right to defense, and basic facts were appropriately revised and recognized within the same scope.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness F, G and H;

1. Recording of the witness E's statement in the first public trial protocol;

1. Results of on-site inspections by this court;

1. A written statement of I;

1. Each investigation report (in cases of cotton, 62, 99 of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. On May 2010, the Defendant was convicted of the construction of the steel gate on the access road to the instant facts charged (hereinafter “instant road”), and the said judgment became final and conclusive upon being convicted of interference with general traffic, and thus, punishing the Defendant again in the instant case violates the principle of the absence of a company.

B. A. Since around May 2010, A.I.D. came to be a fluorous owner, etc. on the ground of the instant road, and after the Defendant agreed with the owner of the adjoining land to use the right road, the Defendant lost its function as a road to be used for the traffic of the general public because there is no one using the instant road and there is no other person using the right to use the right to use the right to use the right to use the road. Thus, it cannot be deemed to constitute “land

2. Determination

(a) whether it is in violation of the principle of absence of one-day interest, or not, install obstacles, etc. on land;