beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2013.11.20 2012노1034

일반교통방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal (the factual errors) found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the ground that the Defendant constructed a cargo vehicle (hereinafter “instant cargo vehicle”) recorded in the facts charged in the instant case on the road (hereinafter “the instant road”) to conduct farming work and did not intend to obstruct traffic, but did not intend to interfere with traffic, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. In a case where the Defendant denies the criminal intent, the facts constituting the subjective element of such crime have to be proven by means of proving indirect or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent due to the nature of things given the nature of things. In such a case, what constitutes an indirect or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance with the criminal intent should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the link of facts based on the close observation or analysis capabilities based on normal empirical rule.

On the other hand, dolusent intent as a subjective element of the constituent element of a crime must be aware of the possibility of occurrence of a crime, and furthermore, to allow the risk of occurrence of a crime. Whether an actor has accepted the possibility of occurrence of a crime should be confirmed from the standpoint of the offender, taking into account how the general public can assess the possibility of occurrence of a crime based on the specific circumstances, such as the form of an act performed outside and the situation of an act, without depending on the statement of the offender.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do8750, Nov. 10, 201). Moreover, according to the spirit of substantial direct trial that the Criminal Procedure Act adopts as an element of trial-oriented principle, the difference between the first instance court and the appellate court’s method of evaluating credibility.

참조조문