2014Gohap376 Interference with train traffic

A person shall be appointed.

Kim Jong-Un (A prosecution, public trial), and completion date (public trial)

Attorney Kim Jong-hwan (Korean National Assembly Line)

June 29, 2015

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Facts of crime

On November 3, 2014: around 45, the Defendant interfered with the traffic of a train by: (a) on the ground that crew B was shouldered within the guest room of the train No. 174, KTX 102, at the JTX platform of Goyang-gu, Goyang-gu, Goyangyang-si, the Defendant: (b) placed the said train on the stairs of the 2nd boarding of the train, putting the passengers seated, making it difficult to open the entrance while going through verbal abuse; (c) placed the train on a line down from the train; and (d) prevented the said train from driving for about 20 minutes by means of dancing the body of the train and riding it on the train; and (d) interfered with the traffic of the train.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness B, C, and D;

1. On-site photographs and railroad accident notification;

1. An investigation report (a report accompanied by a video CD that obstructs train traffic;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 186 of the Criminal Act

1. Discretionary mitigation;

Articles 53 and 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act (Article 55(1)3 of the Criminal Act, taking into account the favorable circumstances among the grounds for sentencing as follows)

1. Suspension of execution;

Judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act (the following grounds for sentencing have been repeatedly taken into account)

1. Summary of the assertion

A. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not pose a risk to obstruct the train traffic, such as the Defendant sitting in a stowing stairs, or dancing on a train. Thus, this does not constitute a constituent element under Article 186 of the Criminal Act.

B. At the time of the instant case, the Defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the traffic of trains, since it was not intended to obstruct the train traffic, but to stop, as the Defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the traffic of trains.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the assertion that the elements of a crime are not satisfied

The crime of interference with traffic under Article 186 of the Criminal Code is an abstract dangerous crime, which is an important means of transportation in the modern society, and is protected by the law of traffic safety in the train, electric car, automobile, vessel, or aircraft. Therefore, the phrase "to obstruct traffic in the train" in this Article includes not only the case of making it impossible to drive the train but also the case of making it considerably difficult to drive the train. When such a situation occurred, the crime of interference with traffic in the train should be done immediately, and it is not necessary to cause any specific result such as the actual interference with traffic or the occurrence of public danger.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, i.e., ① the Defendant at the time of the instant case: (a) the Defendant was seated in the entrance of the train so that it could not close the entrance and exit of the crew; (b) the Defendant went off the train after getting off the train; (c) the Defendant was unable to operate the train for about 20 minutes; (d) the Defendant’s above act was not in operation for about 174 minutes; (e) the vehicle’s garage was delayed; (v) the arrival was delayed; and (v) the subsequent trains leading to the movement was delayed; and (v) the occurrence of large-scale accidents due to the operation delay due to the characteristics of the KTX train sharing with other trains, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant’s act constituted a secondary traffic obstruction under Article 186 of the Criminal Act; and therefore, the Defendant’s act and the defense counsel’s allegation are without merit.

B. As seen in the judgment on the assertion that there was no intention, since the vehicle traffic obstruction is an abstract dangerous crime, it is sufficient that there was a perception of facts belonging to the elements of a crime as stipulated in this Article for the purpose of establishing the intention of the vehicle traffic obstruction, and it is not necessary to recognize the occurrence of the result of the implementation or to recognize the occurrence of public danger.

The following circumstances acknowledged based on each of the above evidence, namely, ① the Defendant appears to be memorying most of his act at the time of the instant case, ③ the witness B, C, etc. was drunk, but the Defendant stated that it was possible to communicate, not by drinking, even though he was drunk, ② the Defendant was seated in the stairs of the boarding and alley, and was able to walk up on the line after getting off the train. This was not to break on the line, but to stop on the line, but to stop off the train from the end of the vision with the crew. ③ Even if the Defendant had no intention to actively interfere with the traffic of the train, it appears that the Defendant could have been aware that the traffic of the train could have been obstructed due to the above act, and thus, the Defendant’s intentional obstruction and interference with the traffic of the train can not be acknowledged.

The reason for sentencing is that the defendant is not allowed to obstruct the traffic of the vehicles used by the majority of people even if he interferes with his crime, because he did not get out of the down from the down the train and did it later, and later did not take verbal language to the crew, cannot open the entrance door by getting out of the stairs of the entrance, or lying it on the line, etc.

However, considering favorable circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant has no record of criminal punishment, and that the time during which the train traffic was obstructed due to the crime of this case does not extend, the punishment as ordered shall be determined by comprehensively taking into account all the factors of sentencing specified in the arguments of this case, including the defendant's age, character and conduct, the environment, the circumstances and result of the crime of this case, and the circumstances after the crime.

1. The verdict of the jury, verdict of innocence, and other judgments;

○ guilty: Three jurors

○ Not guilty: Four jurors.

2. The jury who pronounced a judgment different from the jury verdict does not constitute an offense of interference with train traffic at the time of the instant case, or such offense does not constitute an offense of interference with train traffic.

In light of the above legal principles and the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the Defendant’s act at the time of the instant case constitutes a constituent element of obstruction of traffic in the future under the Criminal Act, and the intention to commit it can be acknowledged. Thus, unlike the jury verdict, the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case is recognized.

Judges Park Jong-dae

Judge Senior District Court

Judge Oatk