If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On May 2010, the Defendant removed iron fences (2m x 3m x 4m m) installed around August 25, 2009 on the access roads connected to D roads used by village residents in the wife population C as agriculture, and obstructed traffic by installing iron gates in the same place to prevent the passage of village residents E, etc. by installing a iron gate, the width of which is greater than about 3m.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Each statement of witness E, G and H in the protocol of the second, third, and fourth trial;

1. The suspect interrogation protocol of some police officers against the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Each certification of G, I, J, K, L, F, M and N;

1. Court rulings (2010Gohap196);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order. ① The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of the instant case, namely, the location of the instant case where the Defendant installed the steel gate has been used for the passage of village residents for a long time, and the Defendant obstructed traffic by installing the steel gate at the instant place around August 25, 2009.

“For the reason, the instant steel gate was installed in a wider size after the final judgment of KRW 1 million (this Court 2010 High Court 2010 High Court 1568) was received, and once again, the instant steel gate was installed in the instant place; the Defendant did not raise any special objection to the use of the instant place for a considerable period of time, and installed the said steel gate and steel gate after the dispute occurred with the village people; the Defendant used the said steel gate by the village residents for cultivation after the construction of the steel gate, but the Defendant used it as a bypass for the sake of farming. However, this is not only a temporary creation but also a village resident that created a temporary bypass.