Defendant shall be punished by a fine of three million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who actually owns and manages a site with a size of 89 square meters located in B in Ycheon-si.

Defendant: (a) was an opportunity for part of the instant land to become aware of the fact that part of the instant land C road was included in his/her own possession as a result of the survey; (b) was installed on July 7, 2016 at a steel network fence of about 15 meters in length and about 1m wide; and (c) obstructed the traffic of the land along which the general public pass by preventing vehicles, etc. from passing.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. Reporting on internal investigation - on-site investigation, attachment of photographs, investigation reports (verification of past photographs of the place of crime);

1. Application of each statute on photographs;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 185 of the Criminal Act selective punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order did not obstruct traffic by the defendant's act, and there was no intention to obstruct traffic.

The argument is asserted.

In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, ① some of the land B was used as a passage of neighboring residents along the Y-si road, ② the Defendant’s construction of a steel fence on the land boundary of the above B, thereby reducing the width from approximately 3.8m to about 2.8m, and accordingly, the traffic of the vehicle and pedestrians became impossible, ③ neighboring residents complaining of traffic inconvenience caused by the steel fence, ④ Defendant also indicated the “vehicle traffic congestion” on the steel fence, and thus, it appears that the passage of the vehicle would be impossible due to the construction of the steel fence, thereby obstructing the Defendant’s land traffic by the Defendant’s act.