Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000 and by a fine of KRW 2,00,000.

The above fine is imposed against the Defendants.

Punishment of the crime

On December 20, 2016, the Defendants decided to prevent the paths by installing a pipe at two entrances of the roads near G, the only passage leading to the said stable, and connecting it to the locked, and by keeping it with locks, in order to prevent the victim E from constructing a sprink, a temporary building in the vicinity of the East Sea. Defendant B set up a banner in the following manner: “A warning, a company-type stable, the absolute non-permission of the use of the private-owned land,” the representative of each branch of the access road, H residents, and I Newdo Association”: (a) Defendant B set up a banner in the following manner; and (b) Defendant B set up a banner on the side of the road: (c) “A warning, a company-type stable, a company-type stable, the absolute non-permission of the use of the private-owned land,” and (d) “H residents, and I Newdo Association.”

As a result, the Defendants conspired to obstruct the victim's construction of livestock pens by force, and at the same time interfered with the passage of the land.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ partial statements in the third public trial protocol

1. Entry of each part of the witness J and K in the fourth public trial records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing inquiries into facts, replies to land use, written consent to land use, and entire registered matters;

1. Article 314 (1), Article 30 (Crimes of Obstruction of Business) of the Criminal Act, Articles 185 and 30 (Crimes of Obstruction of General Traffic) of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act for the ordinary concurrences;

1. Selection of each alternative fine for punishment;

1. Determination as to the Defendants’ assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, each of which was confined in the workhouses.

1. The defendants' assertion that the farm roads of this case are used as only a specific residents of the village, and the complainant is not entitled to pass through the farm roads of this case, and there are other passages leading to the site planned for construction of livestock pens except for the farm roads of this case, and the complainants can proceed with construction of livestock pens using the passage. Thus, the defendants' act of blocking the farm roads of this case cannot be deemed as interfering with the complainant's construction of livestock pens or interfering with general traffic.

2. Determination

(a) Interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act shall be the safety of public traffic.