logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 공주지원 2013.08.23 2013고정43
일반교통방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

1. At around 14:30 on February 6, 2012, the Defendant interfered with traffic by stockpiling two sewage pipes (a.e., 260cc., 110cm in length) on the road along the width of 2.7m in Gongju-si, Gongju-si, by piling up on the road, thereby blocking the passage of the road.

2. The defendant around September 21, 2012, at the places specified in paragraph (1) above around September 21, 2012, the boiler repair and approved D are the same year.

8. For the mother of E connected to the above road to enter the house, she destroyed the road by digging up one of two sewage pipes he he he he he he he he he he he he he saw, using the niff searcher, and digging up the soil he sawd and cut up so as to make it possible to pass the vehicle, and destroying the road and hindering the traffic by digging up the earth.

3. On December 4, 2012, the Defendant interfered with traffic by leaving plastic softs on the road in front of the Defendant’s house in order to obstruct the traffic flow of the road in front of the Defendant’s house near the place indicated in the foregoing paragraph (1) by blocking the passage of the road on the road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. A criminal investigation report (general);

1. Application of statutes, such as site photographs, field photographs, Internet satellite photographs, etc.;

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

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

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

1. The defendant and defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserted that since the road of this case is used only by E family members, it does not constitute "land access" as referred to in the general traffic obstruction since it is not a public place for traffic by the general public.

However, the term "land passage" as used in the general traffic obstruction refers to the wide passage of land that is actually common use in the traffic of the general public, and its ownership is also the site.

arrow