일반교통방해등
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the road in this case is a concrete package packaging the victim’s state-owned land and another’s private land without permission, and only one’s use is used. Thus, it cannot be said that the crime of interference with general traffic or interference with business is established against the Defendant.
2. Determination
A. At around 09:30 on July 29, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the E’s panty business by force by setting up three gate support units on the road and allowing many unspecified persons to pass through the road on the same road on the ground that he/she is subject to the same road on the cement packing side of his/her “Dpanty in south-gu C at port,” operated by himself/herself at around 09:30 on July 29, 2015, the Defendant interfered with the operation of the Fpanty business operated by E in the same manner and at the same time and place as the above 1). The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged (the Defendant alleged in the lower court that the Defendant’s act was not contrary to social rules, but the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on detailed reasons in the written judgment.
A person shall be appointed.
C. The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by legal principles and evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which is a crime of causing damage to or infusing a road, etc., or significantly obstructing traffic by other means, and which is a crime of causing damage to or infusing a road, etc., or causing interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 195). Here, the term “land” refers to a place for traffic by the general public, i.e., an unspecified person, not limited to a specific person.