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

On April 201, the Defendant: (a) as a result of the survey of dry field C located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, the Defendant confirmed that the farming roads installed therein were his own land; (b) obstructed the traffic of the vehicles and people on the land along which the vehicles and people pass by by by blocking a large number of stones of 20 to 30cm in size so that a molecular may not pass through a vehicle, agricultural machinery, etc. at the entrance of the farm.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness D;

1. Application of each entry or video statute No. 83, No. 83, No. 101, No. 101, No. 108, No. 108, the evidence list of traffic obstruction evidence, and the statement prepared by the accused;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant’s summary of the assertion did not interfere with traffic by blocking the road as stated in the facts charged of the instant case.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence revealed in front of the judgment, namely, ① in the cadastral map, it is indicated that E is a road on the land side of the Gyeongnam-gun, Gyeongbuk-gun, the Defendant owned by the Defendant, but the place used as a road is passing through the above C land owned by the Defendant, E is used as a dry field, and E is not used as a road for a long time, such as using it as a dry field. ② The general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime protecting the safety of the general public traffic, and “land” refers to a wide range of the land passage of the general public, and thus, the ownership or traffic relation of the site or the traffic right of the passage or the trafficr is not so wide and sound, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002).