beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 여주지원 2016.06.28 2016고단358

일반교통방해

Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of Gyeonggi-gun C, a part of which is the current situation.

Around August 2, 2014, the Defendant demanded the residents using the above road to pay the usage fee of the land to be used as the current condition, but refused it, and installed two above and two boundary marking seals and two parts of the D answer, which is the current status, around August 2, 2014, to prevent the free passage of other vehicles, thereby hindering the traffic of the land through the land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

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. The reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Criminal Procedure of the Order of Provisional Payment is long to the period during which the defendant obstructed the traffic of the road of this case, and the grievance of neighboring residents is not less than that of the road, and the defendant among the disadvantageous circumstances, there are damage to his house abutting on the road due to the traffic of a large vehicle, causing rupture, etc.

In light of the above, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant committed the instant crime with a view to restricting the passage of large vehicles, including the fact that the Defendant committed the instant crime, the part of the land owned by the Defendant is included in the present situation, the Defendant’s imprisonment with prison labor for not more than one year and not more than two years of suspended execution due to attempted fraud in February 2010, and other favorable circumstances, including the Defendant’s old age, the family environment of the Defendant, the means and consequence of the instant crime, and the circumstances after the crime, etc., as indicated in the instant argument, and make