Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On April 2013, the Defendant: (a) on a farming road located between C and D orchard (hereinafter “instant farming road”); (b) around May 2012, the Defendant thought that E cultivating an orchard in the above D had extended the above farming road to the width of 230 centimeters; (c) on around May 2012, the Defendant: (a) extended the above farming road to the width of 230cc; and (d) had the Defendant’s ownership C without permission, located on the side of the farm road; (b) using the digging hole, the Defendant was able to carry the said farming road with at least 90cc wide, the maximum width of 150cc wide; and (c) opened the said farm road with the width of 51 meters long.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with traffic so that agricultural machinery can not run on the upper side of the road.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E, F, G, and H;

1. Application of the second police interrogation protocol to the defendant;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act, based on the judgment of conviction under Article 334(1) of the Provisional Payment Order, is a crime of which the legal interest is the protection of traffic safety of the general public. The term "landway" here refers to a wide range of the land passage used for the passage of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic right, or heavy and sound of the passageer, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7279, Jun. 13, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the court of this case by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, namely, to enter the land owned by E and F as a contribution, only the farm road of this case is inevitable, and ② the defendant also stated by the investigative agency that E could have been used for the above farming road even before the width of the farm road of this case, and ③ the land was purchased as permanent residence for a considerable period of time after the purchase of the land in this case.