However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

On April 2017, the Defendant: (a) laid down a dry field at a height of about 30 cm, with a width of about 30 cm off D and E on the land owned by the Defendant’s Defendant’s Dong C, which is a land owned by the Defendant’s Dong C, with a width of about 50 cm off; and (b) opened a dry field with a width of about 50 cm; (c) made it impossible for the Defendant to pass the vehicle and bring significant difficulties to pedestrians’ passage; and (d) obstructed traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. The document of F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (verification of suspect submission photographs);

1. Relevant Article 185 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da148

1. The gist of the argument is that the road of this case is not a place provided to the general public for traffic, but a substitute is secured at the time of committing the crime, and thus it does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic.

2. The purpose of interfering with general traffic safety under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, road, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means, as an offense involving the protection of the general public’s legal interests and interests.

Here, “land access” refers to a place public for the traffic of the general public, namely, a place with a public nature where many and unspecified persons or horses are allowed to freely pass through without limited to a specific person. In addition, the ownership relation, traffic relation, or large number of traffic visitors and sound, etc. are not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Do18422, Sept. 28, 2016). In addition, the crime of interference with general traffic is a so-called abstract dangerous crime where traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic interference is not a practical occurrence (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da18422, Oct. 28, 2005).