Where the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

On January 12, 2012, from around 20:00 to around 10:00 of the 16.16.1, the Defendant: (a) laid off a large c.19m width at a point at which 800m width is 3.19m wide; (b) other than the above access roads, one meter in depth, 3 meters in diameter, and 4m high breadth, and interfere with the transportation of d’s sand or tin by land through which general vehicles pass, such as d’s tin-transport vehicles, the complainant’s tin-transport vehicle, etc., by spreading 80m wide; and (c) at the same time, the Defendant interfered with D’s c.i.e., the Defendant’s force.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

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

1. Application of statutes concerning the police interrogation protocol to the accused;

1. Article 185 and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Commercial Concurrent Crimes Act (Punishment prescribed for interference with general traffic, but selection of fines);

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion under Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of a workhouse

1. The defendant asserts that the road section of the road where the Gu is attached to the defendant as stated in facts constituting a crime, and the flag is not a place where many and unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses can freely pass, and thus, it does not constitute land access as stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

2. It is recognized that the road of this case is mainly used for the entry into and exit from the Clight Complex, as alleged by the Defendant.

However, according to the evidence of the court below, since the road of this case was established in 197, it was actually closed as it was not used after the road of this case was constructed. Thus, it is recognized that many unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses can freely pass through the road of this case.