logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.23 2016노2875
일반교통방해
Text

We reverse the judgment of the first instance court.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles) of this case, the access road (hereinafter “road of this case”) developed on the Nan field 863 square meters (hereinafter “the land of this case”), which is owned by the Defendant, may be deemed as falling under “land access” freely passed by many and unspecified persons or the end of the car, and it is evident that the act of the Defendant, like the written facts in the facts charged, was practically and seriously interfered with the entry and exit of O’s construction vehicles, etc.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendant of the fact that the road of this case cannot be seen as "land access" as prescribed by the general traffic obstruction, and that there was no real interference with the traffic of the road of this case despite the Defendant's act, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles or in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected

2. Determination:

A. (i) Whether a “land” is “land” as provided in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of protecting the public’s legal interest and protection of traffic safety. The term “landway” refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public. It does not go through the land ownership relation, traffic relation, or the passage and/or traffic relation, or the passr. (See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the following facts and circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the first and the first instance court, it is reasonable to view the road in this case as a public area with public nature where many and unspecified persons may freely pass through, and constitutes “land” as provided in Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

① On January 26, 2010, the instant road is a road under the Building Act with seven parcels of land, etc., including the instant land, when the GB and three parcels of land located around the instant land, which were located in the neighboring area of the instant land, is granted to the GA, etc.

arrow