A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for four months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant asserted that he was granted the exclusive right to use the said road by the owner C of 532m2, and that he paid the fee to the representative F of the Si Construction E Co., Ltd. using the said road as the access road to the D Construction Site at the city. However, the Defendant did not comply with the foregoing, with the intention of F to interfere with construction by preventing the said road.

1. On January 11, 2019, from around 09:45 to around 10:24 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with the traffic by allowing the Defendant to enter a vehicle, such as air-conditioning containers, etc., at the center of the above road by parking off the off-to-land owned by the Defendant and installing a waste air conditioners, on the said ground, thereby obstructing the traffic by allowing the Defendant to pass off the above land, which is a place for public traffic.

2. The Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s business, as described in paragraph (1), obstructed the victim’s legitimate progress of construction by force by blocking the Victim G, an employee of the said E company, from entering the construction site due to blocking B roads used by E company as access roads for housing construction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Complaints, building report certificates, and on-site photographs;

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

1. Relevant Article 185 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime (the point of interference with general traffic), Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act (the point of interference with business) and the choice of imprisonment line;

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

1. The fact that the Defendant, who was sentenced to a fine due to the same kind of crime as the sentencing of Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act, committed the instant crime again exceeds the Defendant’s unfavorable circumstances, or there are some circumstances to consider the circumstances leading to the instant crime, the crime of interference with business, and the fact that the Defendant agreed with the victim was smoothly.