In addition, as the situation of the road at the time of the instant case occurred, it can be sufficiently recognized that the Defendant was likely to obstruct the passage of other vehicles.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or misunderstanding the legal principles.

2. On September 30, 2016, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, even though the Defendant knew that a large number of vehicles are in line with CA car from the shooting distance of each tunnel at Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the traffic is fixed, the Defendant, even though he was aware of the fact, caused interference with the passage of other vehicles by “in violation of the method of passage through the intersection and the name tag” by leaving the intersection in front of the crosswalk and stopping at the intersection in a way that he did not pass through the intersection.

3. The court below held that Article 25 (5) of the Road Traffic Act ("the Road Traffic Act") is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant stops in a certain area of the stop line beyond the stop line on the ground that even according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the defendant at the time of this case is likely to obstruct the passage of other vehicles, and that there is a possibility that other vehicles might interfere with the passage of other vehicles, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant is not guilty on the ground that there is no other evidence to prove this.

4. The court below duly adopted and investigated the judgment of the party.