logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.03.21 2013고정3571
일반교통방해
Text

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On December 15, 2012, the Defendant had been able to obstruct the traffic of many unspecified people, such as neighboring village residents and tourists, by piling up soil of about 1.5 meters at a height of 1.5 meters on the passage route passing through Incheon Reinforcement-gun D and E, and obstructed traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. The police statement concerning F;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each report on investigation;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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

1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the Defendant and his defense counsel, who committed the crime, denied the crime by asserting that the passage along the judgment (hereinafter “instant passage”) does not constitute the land of general traffic obstruction.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest of the safety of traffic of the general public is protected. The term "land passage" refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public. It does not go through the ownership relation of the site, the traffic right relation, or the multiple and hostileness of traffic users (Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651 delivered on July 27, 199).

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of this case, namely, ① the passage along the passage of the Defendant’s outer mountain village by passing H and I to the Incheon-gun of Incheon, which is the Defendant’s outer mountain village and passing along the south coast along the Eastdo, and the dispute between the Defendant and the residents occurred from around 200 to the point of time when the residents of the South East Eastdo is using the same inspection, and the reinforcement army opened the coast along the eastdododododo bypassing the Eastdo Island around 207, and ② the passage along the coast of the Eastdodo.

arrow