logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.02 2015고정575
일반교통방해
Text

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

Reasons

The defendant is the owner of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government building, and the land of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and E located in front of the above building is the land used for the passage of the general public after around 2010.

From June 13, 2013 to October 10, 2013 of the same year, the Defendant brought about 100 ccines on the land. When F et al. installed on the above land with a fence in the shape of “cream” and came to have two meters wide, the Defendant installed additional chemical parts and reduced the width by 60 cm, and removed the said chemical parts from F et al.

Even after being asked, people could not pass through the above land by continuously installing a chemical part without complying with the request.

As such, the Defendant interfered with traffic.

Judgment

The purpose of general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts which make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by damaging or infusing land, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means as an offense, the protection of which is the protection of the law of the public's interest.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4266 Decided July 9, 2009, etc.). Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the Health Team and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by this court with respect to the instant case, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have installed chemical parts on the land in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D and E (hereinafter “instant land”) as indicated in the facts charged, so as to make it impossible or considerably difficult for the Defendant to pass through by interfering with the traffic of the land, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(1) On June 13, 2013, F notified the Defendant that he would install a fence (hereinafter “instant fence”) on the instant land from June 13, 2013.

Dor F, immediately after the above notice was given to the Defendant, F, fences.

arrow