일반교통방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute “D” of interference with general traffic, which is freely and freely passed by the general public.
2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below
A. On March 2014, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the traffic of residents who walk from the following areas by installing a gate at the entrance point and installing a stone tower at the middle of the road, etc., in a non-packaged road of 4m wide in Gangwon-gu, Gangwon-gu, Seoul, etc.; (b) around March 2014, the Defendant interfered with traffic of residents
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged.
3. Determination on whether a deliberation was made
A. In a criminal trial, recognition of facts constituting an offense ought to be based on strict evidence with probative value, which makes a judge feel true beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, in a case where the prosecutor’s proof fails to sufficiently reach the extent of having the aforementioned conviction, even if there is doubt of guilt, such as the defendant’s assertion or defense contradictory or uncomfortable dismissal, it should be determined in the interests of the defendant (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do1487, Apr. 28, 201) (see, 201; 201Do1487, Apr. 28, 201). The general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a crime involving the protection of the general public’s legal interests and punishing any act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by interfering with traffic by causing the general public or interfering with traffic by other means, the term “land” refers to a place where the general public access is made, namely, a place where a specific person or a large number of people freely pass through the public.