Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be one day.

The Defendant is the owner of Gangnam-si C (hereinafter referred to as “the access road of this case”).

On April 8, 2017, the Defendant used the access road to the said road to build a new house. On the grounds that the Defendant used the access road to the said road, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the said access road into a steel fence; (b) obstructed the access road from April 14, 2017 to August 29, 2017; and (c) prevented vehicles from passing through the said road by walking the steel fence and piling up the cement block.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the traffic of the land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the police officers of the accused;

1. On-site photographs;

1. Current status map of housing sites;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of a fine (the amount of a fine in a summary order shall be reduced in consideration of the withdrawal of a complaint by most of the residents who filed the complaint);

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. The gist of the allegation was that the access road of this case was not the length of the original vehicle, and that the defendant he he he he he he he he he stored a steel pent or cement block.

Even if it is possible to visit people, it does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish any act of causing damage to or influence of land, etc. or significantly obstructing traffic by causing damage to or influence of the general public’s legal interests in the protection of traffic safety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Here, the term “land access” refers to a place public for the traffic of the general public, i.e., a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or horses are allowed to freely pass through, without having access to, a specific person, and the ownership of such a site.