If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won shall be one day.

Some of the facts charged were corrected.

On April 19, 2017, the Defendant: (a) at the first boundary point in Gwangju City through B and through D; (b) at the end of the above traffic route, installed a hack fence and iron entrance to make the width of the above traffic route four meters; (c) around January 19, 2018, the Defendant interfered with the traffic of the above traffic route on the land, which is a road commonly used for the traffic of the general public, by preventing the entry of large vehicles, such as dump trucks, from entering the above traffic route by making the width of the above traffic route approximately KRW 7 cm and approximately 1m in length a 2.45m away from the entrance column of the entrance; and (d) around January 19, 2018.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement of E and F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a cadastral editing map (15 pages), a report on investigation (168 pages for field verification and investigation records), each field photograph (37 to 341 pages of investigation records);

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The Defendant’s conviction on the ground of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of Korea asserts that, as the owner of the forest and field passing through the road as indicated in the judgment of the Defendant, the school juristic person G University (hereinafter “G University”) only prevented large vehicles, such as dump trucks, from entering the above road with a view to preventing them from developing 230,000 square meters around the surrounding site by using the above passage route without the Defendant’s understanding, most vehicles and people, such as one ton truck, etc., except the above vehicles, can freely pass through the above passage, and thus, the Defendant’s act cannot be deemed as interfering with the traffic of the above passage.

We examine this.

Interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of which the legal interest and protection is the traffic safety of the general public, and damage by land or by fire.