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

The defendant is a person who has established and resides in a prefabricated-type panel without permission on the land of Daegu Dong-gu owned by C.

On June 2015, in order to prevent E from passing through the farm road after the Defendant returned from the Defendant’s residence on the following day on June 2015, the Defendant obstructed the traffic of the above farm road by placing about 3 meters of tree trees cut above the farm road, and putting flags together the felb.

Summary of Evidence

1. Part of the defendant's legal statements;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to on-site photographs, investigative reports (on-site investigation), on-site maps, photographs, investigative reports (telecommunications which is a complaint), and investigative reports (statements of witnesses residing around the site);

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. The Defendant and the defense counsel’s assertion on the assertion of the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order asserts that “The instant farming road does not constitute a land through which many and unspecified persons pass, and thus no crime of interference with general traffic is established.”

The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of protecting the safety of traffic of the general public. Here, the term "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public. The ownership relation of the site, the relation of the traffic and the relation of the rights and the right of the passage or the passage of the passage, etc. are not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007; 2015Do7055, Dec. 24, 2015). According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the farming of this case is limited to one meter in width, and is a path created by the passage of the people for several years, and the fact that the owners of dry field adjacent to the above farming road use many of the owners of dry field, other than the complainants, can be acknowledged.