일반교통방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.
The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on factual misunderstanding and by misapprehending the legal principles as delineated below, thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise of objection.
1) Land A located in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D (hereinafter “instant land”) is not a road used for the general public’s traffic.
Rather, at the time of the Defendant’s installation of fences, etc. on the instant land, the Defendant was using Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government M (hereinafter “instant adjoining land”) owned by E adjacent to the instant land as land for unspecified multiple traffic.
In that sense, E had no choice but to use the land as a passage due to installing posts on its ground to prevent passage, but the land of this case is not suitable for the passage of the general public in light of the geographical form, such as angles, slopes, packing conditions, etc., and the actual use of the land was considerably low compared to the adjacent land of this case.
2) The Defendant had no intention to install a pen with A to indicate that the land of this case is not a passage through the road while the dispute regarding the use of the adjoining land of this case was pending between E and E. There was no intention to install a pen and plant seedlings, or to obstruct the passage of the general public.
In addition, in the case of the application for disposition, the above court dismissed the application for provisional disposition on the ground that the above court's adjacent land was insufficient to view it as a road used for the general public's passage. The prosecutor also issued a non-prosecution disposition on the charge of installing posts on the adjoining land of this case. In light of the judgment of the judicial authority, the defendant determined that the act of installing pents, etc. on the land of this case does not constitute a obstruction of general traffic.