The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

On October 1, 2016, from around October 4, 2016 to around October 4, 2016, the Defendant parked agricultural machinery owned by the Defendant on the right side of the road on the ground that the victim’s cargo vehicles in front of the warehouse owned by the Defendant in the Special Self-Governing City of Sejong, and the victim C’s cargo vehicles in front of the warehouse located in the Special Self-Governing City of Sejong, using the road to cause damage, such as equal heat generated to the Defendant’s house, using the road.

After all, the defendant interfered with the traffic of the land and interfered with the civil engineering work of the victim by force.

On October 5, 2016, in front of the warehouse owned by the above defendant, the victim's cargo vehicles cannot pass the above road, the defendant shouldered the right-hand side of the access road to the above road and took concrete stones (one meter wide, 40cm high) in that place, and attached a hack pipe to the hacker.

After all, the defendant interfered with the traffic of the land and interfered with the civil engineering work of the victim by force.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged through each evidence duly adopted and investigated by the prosecutor, the crime of interference with general traffic is a crime that legally protects the safety of the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Do11408, Jan. 24, 2018). The crime of interference with traffic is not established where the crime of interference with affairs is not likely to result (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do9028, Apr. 27, 2007). In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is proven to the extent that the crime of interference with traffic safety of the general public was committed by the defendant, that the damage was obstructed by the work of the damaged person, and that there was an intentional intention to interfere with traffic and business by the defendant, and that there was no reasonable doubt.

It is difficult to see, and otherwise, it.