Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is the owner of the wife B in Young-si, and the victim C and the victim D refer to milch milch in the wife E and F in the city of Sori-si and the father and operate “G”.

1. On June 4, 2019, the Defendant interfered with general traffic, from the access road to the “G” located in the “G” located in the wife population H, which includes part of the access road, made it impossible to pass the vehicle due to the decrease in the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant, while there was a dispute between the victims using the access road and the access road, and made it difficult to pass the vehicle by installing a steel fence at the same time.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with traffic by blocking the passage through the land.

2. Around June 5, 2019, the Defendant interfered with the business, at the above location, laid down the boundary of the Defendant’s land among the access roads to G, and made it difficult for the victims to enter the said “G”, including buses visiting the said “G” for dairy experience.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with the G operation of victims by force.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's statement G status of the police's partial statement D, the entire certificate of registered matters (B), on-site photo investigation report (Attachment of G reservation status submitted by the complainant, outsite investigation, interview photo attached), and the defendant's defense counsel's assertion, first of all, it does not constitute "G access road" (hereinafter referred to as "road of this case") located in the main population H, which is not a road used by the public, and is not a road used by the public, and thus, it does not constitute "land access" of general traffic obstruction. Since the defendant merely committed the act as stated in its reasoning in order to indicate the boundary once after the completion of his/her own land survey, there was no intention to obstruct general traffic obstruction (in addition, the defendant reported that it was replaced by the victim after the date on which the defendant marked his/her boundary, and installed a steel fence, and therefore traffic obstruction situation.