일반교통방해
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.
When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.
Punishment of the crime
On June 27, 2017, from around 10:00 to 17:00, the Defendant obstructed the above road by blocking the pipe installed at the former place, in order to prevent the passage of the freight vehicle for the purpose of over-source pipeline work on the roads with the width of 3 meters in Gyeong-gun and D (hereinafter “instant roads”).
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with an unspecified number of traffic that passed.
Summary of Evidence
1. Statement by the defendant in court;
1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;
1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to internal investigation reports (Attachment of photographs), the gender support of the Daegu District Court 2015 High Court 2015 High Court 91 High Court en banc Decision 91
1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 185 of the Criminal Act selective punishment, and the choice of fines;
1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;
1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Apr. 29, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 2010, Apr. 29, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20148, Apr. 29, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 2020, Apr. 29, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20334, Apr. 29, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20334, Apr. 29, 2016; Presidential Decree No. 20344, Apr. 29, 2015; Presidential Decree No. 20337, Apr. 2
Thus, the road of this case is a place that is still offered for the traffic of the general public at the time of committing the crime of this case and constitutes the land as referred to in the obstruction of traffic in the general public, and it cannot be viewed any different from the circumstance alone, such as the ownership of the site or the relation of traffic rights (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995). However, even according to the assertion, the road of this case does not reach the extent to replace the road of this case as a non- packing road with the inconvenience of traffic.
In addition, the defendant and his defense counsel have been permitted by the defendant.