If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

1. On November 11, 2017, the Defendant obstructed traffic by: (a) closing the door-to-door pipe produced with steel pipe installed at the entrance of a road within the private land, and preventing passing through D, on the ground that the private land owned by the Defendant in the door-to-face C was passed by D without permission, around 09:06, Nov. 11, 2017.

2. On December 14, 2017, the Defendant interfered with traffic by preventing the passage of E from entering the places described in paragraph 1 at around 14:00 and in the same manner as paragraph 1.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness D;

1. Each police statement made to D or E;

1. Summary order;

1. Each investigation report (as evidence list Nos. 3, 7, 18, 24, 36, and 38), occurrence report, and each internal investigation report (as evidence list Nos. 13,34);

1. Determination of the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion, such as field photographs and artificial satellites, and the defendant and defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion, and since the place where the defendant installed the iron bars is not a place accessible to the general public, but only an individual's private ground

The argument is asserted.

However, according to each of the above evidence, it is the intermediate point of the road where the defendant installed a iron door from a long time to a point where village residents, etc. have freely passed without any restriction. However, the circumstances such as the defendant's permission of passage for anyone after installing a iron door at a few years, and prohibition of passage for anyone are arbitrarily controlled by the road traffic.

Thus, the defendant's behavior constitutes an act that interferes with the passage of the land commonly used by the general public.

When considering the defendant's statement in the court and investigative agency, it seems that the defendant has a lot of meaning that the place where a steel door is installed is private.

However, land referred to in the crime of interference with general traffic is unrelated to the ownership of the site (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do18422, Sept. 28, 2016, etc.). Defendant and defense counsel’s assertion is not accepted.