If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The defendant is the owner of Kim Sea-si C and D's land, who operates a factory in the above C's trade name, E, and the above D has long been used as a road adjacent to the above factory, on which residents' vehicles or people pass.

On October 2017, the Defendant was seeking to obtain permission for the extension of the above factory at Kim Sea in order to expand the existing factory, and the Defendant heard that the permission for the extension of the factory could not be granted unless he/she obtains alternative roads because of civil petitions from the public officials in charge of Kimhae-si, because of civil petitions being used by village residents. On October 15, 2017, the Defendant obstructed traffic by blocking the above road, which is a public land, by preventing residents from using by installing a green container 2 east (3m, length, 6m, 2.5m, 5m, 5m in length), iron, etc. on both sides of the above D-road around October 15, 2017.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Land register;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to field photographs, road site photographs, and land partitioned photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is that a road used by village residents for their meritorious services is constructed in his/her own private land and it causes interference with obtaining permission for the extension of nearby factories, and unilaterally shut down a road on one side of a container and interfere with the traffic and passage of village residents, so the case is not less complicated, but is not less likely to be criticized.

Since a road is completely closed and its condition continues to be maintained for about two months, the degree of traffic interference is not somewhat weak.

However, the defendant seems to reflect his wrongness in depth.