beta
Text
A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.
Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
The Defendant, on the ground that, around April 25, 2014, the Defendant found one’s own land included in part of the said road, on the road of approximately 2.5 meters wide from the f.5m wide location between D and E, in which 16 residents other than C, etc. have used as a traffic route, installed a steel net on the one-way side of the road around May 15, 2014, installed a steel net at around 26.5m in length at the place where the said steel network was installed, and obstructed traffic by installing a steel fence at least 1m high, and by obstructing the flow of vehicles by 16 residents other than C, who intend to pass the said road.
Summary of Evidence
1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;
1. Statement by the prosecution against C;
1. Photographs, written applications, written judgments, copies of the protocol of examination of witnesses (No. 2012, No. 441, 471 and investigation reports (to hear opinions from residents G);
1. The result of the on-site inspection conducted by this court [the defendant and his defense counsel installed fences, such as the statement of the crime in the judgment of the defendant, but the passage of this case does not obstruct the traffic of people, and since the passage of this case does not obstruct the passage of people, and the passage of the motor vehicle, other than the passage of this case, is a separate passage through which C et al. may move, the defendant's installation of fences does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic. The passage of the land as provided in Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to the passage of land actually used for the passage of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site or the traffic right relation is not neglected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2112, Nov. 4, 1994). If the passage of the motor vehicle was impossible, it constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do2154, May 15, 195).
Even if the road is used for the traffic of the general public, it is a passage.