However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

(e).

The Defendant is the D owner of Daegu-gun-gun, and the victim C is the owner of adjoining E site and ground, and the Defendant’s land is the only land that the Defendant and the victim walked to the road, but the Defendant did not pay KRW 500,000 to the victim a monthly fee of KRW 500,000,000 for the Defendant voluntarily determined, or around October 2010, the Defendant obstructed the traffic of the above access road through which many unspecified unspecified people pass by stockpiling a wall of approximately 170cm in height on the E boundary owned by the said D

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of the police statement regarding C;

1. A complaint, a mediation protocol;

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes, the choice of punishment, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (including that the defendant is aged and has no record of criminal punishment);

1. The defendant's assertion of Article 32 (1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. to dismiss an application for compensation, asserts that "the defendant has accumulated a fence on the boundary between the victim's house and the house, but the defendant did not have any intention to obstruct traffic, and it does not constitute a constituent element of a general traffic obstruction because the road on which the defendant's fenced is stored is difficult to be

However, according to the above evidence, since the road where the defendant gets a fence built up was used as a road for a long time through the house and meritorious road owned by the victim, it constitutes a land for the obstruction of general traffic, and the victim did not allow the defendant to store a fence against the above road, and the victim in civil disputes related to the passage of the above road between the defendant and the victim conducted the ownership transfer registration procedure against the defendant on October 2009 against the ground of the completion of the prescription period for possession acquisition as to part of the road in this case.