A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for a period of one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

On April 2015, the Defendant obstructed the flow of traffic by installing obstacles in a place where it was located, on the grounds that the farmland purchased from F included the above E in the farmland purchased from N, and on the grounds that it did not timely compensate, the Defendant obstructed the flow of traffic by preventing the vehicle from passing through the said road, on the grounds that the farmland purchased from F was included in the above E land.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the defendant and witness G

1. Each legal statement of the witness F, H, I, J, and K;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning H, I, J, and F;

1. Application of a certified copy of cadastral map, field photographs, and statutes;

1. Relevant Article 185 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order

1. The summary of the argument and the defense counsel asserted that although the defendant installed a bryp case (hereinafter “Obstruction”) on the road of this case, the road of this case cannot be seen as a land passage to and from the general public on the grounds that no person other than F passes at all.

2. Determination

A. As a matter of course, interference with general traffic safety under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense of which the protection of general public’s legal interests is the protection of traffic safety, with the purpose of punishing all acts making it impossible or remarkably difficult for traffic by damaging or infusing land, etc. or by interfering with traffic by other means.

In addition, the crime of interference with general traffic constitutes an abstract dangerous crime, and thus, the traffic is impossible or considerably difficult if it occurs, and the result of traffic interference does not have to be practically caused (see Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1134, Jul. 9, 2015, etc.). Moreover, the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is the legal protection of the traffic safety of the general public.