In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, only 100,000 won.

The Defendants gathered to install obstacles on the only access road entering the original farm in order to prevent the injured party from operating the original farm on the grounds that malodor is emitted and the environment is polluted due to the original farm located in H in the Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun.

On March 24, 2017, the Defendants: (a) installed an obstacle in the form of “b” in the form of “b” in the width of about five meters in width and about ten meters in length using a pipe and brick prepared in advance on the access road to a original farm located in Gyeong-gun, Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongnam-gun; (b) around March 24, 2017; and (c) prevented vehicles from passing through the road.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to interfere with road traffic and at the same time interfered with the victim's farm operation by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the police in relation to G;

1. Written complaint;

1. All on-site photographs;

1. Report on attaching satellite photographs and the application of subordinate statutes as a result of cadastral surveys (the Defendants)

1. Articles 185, 30 (a point of interference with general traffic) of the Criminal Act and Articles 314 (1) and 30 (a point of interference with business) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of the Commercial Competition;

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

1. Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. As to the crime of interference with general traffic, the Defendants and the defense counsel: (a) part of the part of the roads I in the Gyeongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, where the Defendants installed the obstacles (hereinafter “instant land”) is not a contribution to the ownership of the J Village; and (b) the victim did not have any right to access the land owned by J Village; and (c) there was no right to access the land owned by J Village; and (d) there was no access road on the ground of the instant land which the Defendants installed a

This asserts that general traffic obstruction can not be established.

The general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act shall be the traffic of the general public.