logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.11.09 2017고정799
일반교통방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

When neighboring residents D carried out construction works in E land, the defendant suffered damages due to the above construction works, and led to the respect for the religion.

On April 2017, the Defendant: (a) Hasung G and H roads used by the general public for entry into E, such as D and F, from early April 2017.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the passage of roads used for the traffic of the general public such as D and F.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and F;

1. Statement made by the prosecution with regard to D;

1. Statement made by the police against D;

1. As to the investigation report (as to the public official's currency), the investigation report

1. Statement of the complainant;

1. F's certificate;

1. Complaint;

1. Road registers;

1. Public announcement of designation of roads;

1. A certificate;

1. Each real estate transaction contract;

1. Each photograph [the defendant and his defense counsel] of each road is merely a temporary road constructed by the defendant to operate a farm and orchard, and D et al. merely pass the above road under the defendant's implied permission, and it cannot be viewed as a land subject to the protection of general traffic obstruction. In addition, the defendant's act of piling up soil by using sckera in order to restore the state-owned land which has a considerable part of the road of this case, to its original state-owned land, was merely an act of piling up the road to restore the land to the original state-owned land. Thus, the defendant argued that he did not have any intention to obstruct general traffic obstruction. However, in light of the above evidence, the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the above evidence, i.e., the road was used by the defendant for the surrounding part of the farm with a large width of the passage to the farm and orchard, ii) as well as D, F, and mountain visitors, and iii) the owner of the above land without any access to the land of this case.

arrow