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.
The summary of the grounds for appeal by the Defendant (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) (misunderstanding of the reasoning of the appeal by the Defendant) does not correspond to the “land access” in general traffic obstruction as stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and since the persons passing the above land knew of the password of the blocking machine, and even if AH operating “AB” from the place immediately adjacent to the place where the blocking machine is installed opened a blocking machine to the persons intending to pass the above land, it became impossible or remarkably difficult to pass the above land due to the blocking.
shall not be deemed to exist.
Therefore, the defendant's act of getting off the above land does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on general traffic obstruction.
Judgment
The Defendant in the facts charged of this case is a person who operates an authorized broker office in Ansan-si C.
On December 1, 2014, the Defendant interfered with traffic by preventing the flow of vehicles passing through the above road by preventing the flow of vehicles passing through the road, including about 113 meters in length and about 6 meters in length on the concrete packaging street of approximately 6 meters in the width of the road located in Ansan-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City. On July 1, 2014, the Defendant continued to cut off approximately 4 meters in length installed by the Defendant on July 1, 2014.
The lower court determined that the Defendant did not intend to install a blocking device at the time of opening a road on the land D (hereinafter “instant land”) located in Ansan-si, the members of the Seoul-si (hereinafter “the instant land”), but the residents living inside the instant land after engaging in development activities on the surrounding forests and fields of the instant land and selling them in lots, decided to install a blocking device on the instant land on the grounds of the traffic of construction vehicles and security issues around the diameter of 2014, and upon the Defendant’s request, the Defendant around July 2014.