logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2021.03.12 2020고정2141
일반교통방해
Text

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of 69 square meters of land located in Jung-gu, Incheon.

On July 2019, the Defendant installs a set on both sides of the above land, on the ground that the Gu office does not purchase the above land owned by the Defendant on the front side of Incheon Jung-gu Incheon Central District Office, and on the end of February 2020 or of the same year.

3. At the first patrolman, a duplicating fence was installed on the ground of the above land.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the traffic of the general public by making it impossible for the Defendant to pass the previous vehicles, including those operating a lodging establishment, the visitors of a lodging establishment, the general visitors using a king bathing beach, the merchants near a king bathing beach, and the residents living near a king bathing beach.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The Defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no intention to obstruct ordinary traffic, since the instant land was not a road used for the traffic of the public, but a road with a size of 69 square meters in the land B located in Jung-gu Incheon, Incheon, which is owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”) was committed in the same manner as the indicated in the judgment in order to inform the fact that it is a personal ground.

However, in light of the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the protection of the traffic safety of the general public is a legal interest and refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, the relation of the right and the relationship of the traffic, or the personal records of the traffic users, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002), it is reasonable to view the land of this case as the land of this case as the land of this case as the land of this case as the land of this case, which is legally adopted and investigated by this court, in view of the present situation of the use of the land of this case and surrounding land.

arrow