Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, one hundred thousand won shall be the day.

Punishment of the crime

On September 2019, the Defendant asserted that the victim C filed a civil complaint against the Defendant at the Young-gun Office of Young-gun ( approximately 30 meters in length, about 4 meters in width) located adjacent to the building of the Southern-gun B and the second floor owned by the Defendant, the Defendant raised a complaint against the Defendant, from the entrance of the road to the entrance of the victim’s house, and obstructed the traffic of the above land commonly used for the traffic of the general public by installing a reconcing fence with a maximum of 30 meters in length, and a large of 2 meters in width.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A report (related to the submission of data, such as the cadastral map of a suspect) on the investigation of a suspect in the police interrogation protocol (in the case of a witness C’s legal statement / Although the defendant has installed a steel fence on a passage passage to and from the residence of C, the place where a steel fence is installed is owned by the defendant, and the passage road is used only by C and his/her family members, and it does not constitute a road for the passage of the general public;

The argument is asserted.

However, the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest of protecting the traffic safety of the general public is the crime, and the "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land that is actually common to the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, the relation of the right and the relationship of the passage, or the passage of the traveler, etc. is not much or less appropriate (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002, etc.). The above passage has been used mainly by C and its family members, and even if part of the above passage is the land owned by the defendant, the passage constitutes "land passage" as defined by the general traffic obstruction as a whole, and the act of the defendant, who constructed a fence, in part of the passage, constitutes a case where the passage obstructs the traffic of the land.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

Application of Statutes

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act, Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and the choice of fines for criminal facts;