When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

On June 27, 2017, around 21:00, the Defendant occupied the roads in a way that brings three concrete bricks and three stones, fluorh, cement fluorhs on the street in the Simsan-si, Simsan-si.

At the same time, the Defendant occupied the roads by bringing three concrete bricks on the street in Do and Gun, respectively, in the case of Dosan-si, Dosan-si and Gunsan-si.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with traffic by blocking three roads used by the general public such as village residents.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A criminal investigation report (on-site photographs, preparation of a map, etc.), on-site photographs, and map;

1. Determination as to the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion of investigation report (Attachment to the same type of court ruling)

1. Although the summary of the argument is recognized that the defendant obstructed passage on the road by putting the stones, etc. on the road, the road at issue is the private land of the defendant and the act of blocking passage on the private land does not constitute a crime;

Since the defendant was actively aware of it, the defendant cannot be punished.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest and protection of the traffic safety of the general public is the legal interest, and the term “landway” here refers to the wide range of the passage of land that is actually common to the general public through the passage of the general public, and neither the ownership relationship of the site, the relation of the right and the right of passage, or the passage of the traffic users, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007). (b) The Defendant’s act satisfies the requirements for the formation of the act of interference with general traffic, and was

Therefore, it is difficult to regard this as an error of law. Moreover, there is a reasonable ground for misunderstanding that the defendant was convicted of a similar act.

Since the defendant's assertion cannot be seen, it is rejected.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Articles of the Act concerning the facts constituting the crime;