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

Defendant is a person who resides in Ansan-si B, and C is a person who resides in Ansan-si D.

On August 3, 2018, the Defendant: (a) installed eight pents (1.6m aro, 1.6m a vertical length) on the road used by tenants of buildings located in C and Ansan-si D in order to prevent part of the road; and (b) obstructed traffic by making the above-mentioned land, which is a place public for the traffic of the general public, pass through the road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the police interrogation protocol of the accused;

1. Written opinion (one page of a record);

1. Investigation report (as to the confirmation of the road site of this case)

1. Investigation report (as to the statement of the executive chief of the E Middle School Office)

1. On-site photographs;

1. The written statement of the police against C (the defendant and his defense counsel used the road in this case only by the specific people, so they do not correspond to the land that is commonly used for the traffic of the general public, and the defendant's pents installation did not cause interference with the traffic of the public. On the other hand, the "land" of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime that is under the protection of the law and protection of the law and protection of the law and protection of the law and order of the traffic safety of the general public, and actually refers to the land passage in common use by the general public, and it does not refer to the land ownership relation, traffic right relation, or traffic right relation, or traffic congestion of the person who is often used (in fact, even if the road in this case is a passage without any other people than two households, it constitutes "land" as provided for by the

(2) In a case where a fence was installed and a fence was installed in a size of 50 to 75 cm in width on the ground of his own possession, and the passage of residents significantly obstructed, it constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2112, Nov. 4, 1994; 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007). The evidence duly adopted and examined by this court and the circumstances acknowledged thereby.