Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On May 1, 2014, at around 16:00, the Defendant sought to excavate part of the D land owned by the Defendant as a farming ground and remove part of the farming part of the D land owned by the Defendant. However, E, the owner of surrounding land, was not in the wind reported to police officers.

Accordingly, the defendant attempted to obstruct traffic by destroying land routes, but he attempted to commit an attempted crime.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of the witness E, F, G, H, I, and J;

1. Examination protocol of the accused by prosecution;

1. E prosecutorial statement;

1. Photographs;

1. Investigation report prepared by the police (the counter investigation of police officers dispatched to this case);

1. An investigation report (Attachment of a copy of written judgment) prepared by the police, and written judgment appended thereto;

1. Protocol of inspection;

1. An investigation report (cadastral map and photograph attachment) prepared by the chief public prosecutor's office, cadastral map attached thereto, and photograph;

1. Determination as to the defendant and defense counsel's assertion of investigation report (report on the results of checking the scene of crime) prepared by the prosecutor's office branch, and photographs attached thereto

1. The gist of the assertion was only the Defendant’s attempt to stop the work of asking the stones that flow into the Defendant’s rice field on the farm road as indicated in its holding, and there was no intention to narrow the above farm road or interfere with its traffic.

2. Circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence, namely, ① the farm road in the judgment is merely a small agricultural machine with a minimum of at least 1.8 meters (Evidence records 82,160 pages) and its width was so narrow that the passage had no choice but to be obstructed, and the Defendant also seems to have been well aware of such facts through verification conducted on September 27, 2013 (Evidence Records 159,160,161 pages). ② Nevertheless, the Defendant was extended to the prosecution for the construction of the flood control by flooding the above farming road, and even for the above farming road, the Defendant was flicker and flown with the arguments owned by the Defendant.