beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2014.08.14 2014노236

일반교통방해

Text

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Reasons

1. A place where the Defendant stopped a vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant place”) is a private land in G and does not fall under the land provided for the passage of many and unspecified persons.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to, or interference with traffic by causing damage to, the land access, etc. or causing substantial difficulty in traffic by other means. Here, the term “land access” refers to a wide range of the passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or heavy and sound, etc. are not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007).

The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the location of the instant site where the Defendant installed a vehicle is part of the unit K's land in Ansan City owned by G, and ② G installed a vinyl house on the left and right of the instant site and left spawn. In order to prevent the entry of the instant site, G installed a spawn in the middle, and allowed the entry of the vehicle by removing the spawn only when necessary, ③ the north of the instant site was located “L” and there was no other way for the said spawn in addition to passing through the instant site, and accordingly, the instant site was used as a passage for the said spawn by using the Do newsletter (G's legal statement in the court below). Even if G partly restricted the passage of the vehicle, it is possible for a large number of unspecified persons to pass the instant site.