If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

The Defendant interfered with the passage of residents by blocking the paths used as access roads to the orchard by C, a permanent resident of C, on the ground that the roads used as access roads to the orchard are owned by C, and installing the gates without permission, etc., by blocking the roads installed in C, a permanent resident of C, etc., which is a land owned by the Defendant, and blocking the passage of C, etc. by cutting off the roads installed in E, a permanent resident of C, which is a land owned by B, for use by the Defendant. On August 23, 2012, at the permanent resident of E, around 14:00, at E, a permanent resident of 4m, length, 7m, and 70cm in depth, thereby obstructing the passage of traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Statement to C by the police;

1. Application of statutes on investigation reports;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. A road set up at a personal expense by the Defendant’s order (hereinafter “instant road”) is not a road freely passed by the public, but a road other than the instant road, and there is no inconvenience to the passage of village residents. Thus, the Defendant did not interfere with traffic by making the passage through the land.

2. The term “land” as referred to in the judgment of the general traffic obstruction refers to the land road used for the traffic of the general public, and it does not necessarily require that the road is subject to the application of the Road Act, and it is sufficient if it is a road of public nature in which the public or vehicles are able to freely pass.

In addition, it is not required that the land should be the only way of passage, regardless of whether it is a road used for the traffic of the general public or not.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, the road of this case, are the defendant.