일반교통방해
The defendant shall be innocent.
On January 18, 2014, from around 09:28, to around 09:50 on the same day, the Defendant lost the Defendant from the civil litigation with D on the ground that he infringed the Defendant’s land and constructed a retaining wall of the Defendant’s wife, and thereby obstructing the flow of vehicles to proceed with the said road for about 22 minutes by blocking the flow of vehicles by blocking the above road by using iron bars for construction works, electric tools, electric wires, etc.
Defendant
In addition, the gist of the defense counsel’s assertion is that at the time of the instant case, the Defendant only installed a fence on the said road, as described in the facts charged, in the course of carrying the fence on the surrounding land owned by him/her, and there was no intention to obstruct general traffic, and the aforementioned work tools may be easily set up by anyone, so that the passage was not impossible or remarkably difficult. Therefore, general traffic obstruction is not established.
Judgment
The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to or infusing land, etc. or significantly obstructing traffic by causing damage to or infusing land, etc. as an offense under the benefit and protection of the law of the general public's right to traffic safety.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995, 2008Do10560 delivered on January 30, 2009, etc.). According to the evidence duly examined by the court, D, at the time of the instant case, intended to drive the said road by driving the said vehicle, but the said Defendant, while, at the time of the instant road, intended to drive the said road by driving the vehicle, provided that, however, the said Defendant placed the electric dryp, the electric dryp, the electric dryp, the power dryp, and the electric dryp, the power dryp, the power dryp, the power dryp, and the electric dryp, the electric wires were used for storing the said obstacles