A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. On May 7, 2014, the lower court: (a) parked a vehicle on the street before the Defendant’s mother’s residence (hereinafter “instant road”); however, it was possible to pass through the bypass, and thus, the Defendant obstructed traffic. In so doing, the Defendant interfered with traffic.

shall not be deemed to exist.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (four years of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The Defendant asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, even in the lower court, and the lower court did not accept the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds.

(1) Even though the defendant was requested to move his/her vehicle from theO, he/she did not comply with the request.

2. The Defendant, who made a talk with, or avoided, a conflict with, the Defendant, and led time.

(3) Use of a bypassing route requires approximately approximately 15 to twenty minutes.

2) In full view of the following circumstances cited by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant’s assertion is not acceptable on the grounds that the Defendant sufficiently recognized that the traffic of the instant road was obstructed.

① In light of the width of the instant road, if a vehicle is parked on the instant road, it seems impossible for another vehicle to pass through.

(2) In order to use a bypass, only a vehicle shall be towed.

(3) The purpose of interfering with general traffic safety under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts making traffic impossible or remarkably difficult by destroying or infusing land, road, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means, which are an offense in which the protection of public traffic safety is legal interests.

The general traffic obstruction is abstract.