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

On February 24, 2018, at around 08:30, the Defendant: (a) installed two sn beam beam lines with a height of 0.8m high in height at the vicinity of the land C and two sn beam lines around the boundary of the land, and obstructed the traffic of the above farm road by reducing the width of the above farm road by 2.2m high.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D, E, F, and G;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each photograph (as evidence Nos. 6, 8, 16, 17);

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 185 of the Criminal Act selective punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse

1. The defense counsel's assertion argues that ① the above farming road is merely an incidental place where the defendant, who is the landowner, uses the land in his/her own way, and thus, it does not fall under the ground for obstruction of ordinary traffic, but ② the traffic does not become considerably difficult due to the defendant's act.

2. Determination

A. The “land” as stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a wide range of the land passage to and from the general public, which actually refers to the land passage to and from the general public, and the ownership relationship of the site, the traffic relationship, or the passage relationship, or the passr’s large number and red voice, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002, etc.). The first road was established as a farm road for passage to and from the road to the road for the passage of the horse, the passage along which the road was opened

Even if a vehicle has become a road for the traffic of the general public, it can also pass through other vehicles, and if the passage of other vehicles is obstructed, it constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995, etc.). (b) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, including each evidence in the holding, the above farming road has been used for the traffic of the general public, such as residents of the Hegsung-gun, Namsung-gun, for a long time, and the defendant is free to use the above farming road for the traffic of the general public.