logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 마산지원 2017.05.10 2017고정27
일반교통방해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged was that the Defendant purchased a 112mm2 in 2009 m2 from Gyeong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, and that he had been using the above land prior to this time, but he had been living at around about about 40 years before the above 40 years ago, he newly constructed a love bond on the road and instead created a road that can be used by village users due to the edge of the above 40m2.

However, in the process that the complainant D newly built a house in the above wife and expanded the entry road, the Defendant was fluored with the Defendant, and on October 15, 2016, the Defendant installed a steel gate in a size of 1.5 meters high and 5 meters wide on the ground that the concrete road, the width of which is equivalent to 2 meters used as the passage route, is owned by the residents of the village at the same time around the above area, on the ground that it is owned by themselves.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the traffic of roads used by village users.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to or influence of land, etc., or interference with traffic by other means. Here, the term "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public. The ownership relation of the site, the relation of traffic, or the relation of traffic, or the right and interest of traffic, or the hostile, etc. are not limited to a specific person, but are the place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or horses may freely pass through without any specific person (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do401, Apr. 27, 1999, etc.). Examining the following circumstances recognized by the records of the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal principles, it is considerably difficult to punish the Defendant's act of installing the steel passage by causing interference with traffic in general.

arrow