Defendants are not guilty.
1. Violation of the Road Act (2016 ancient 2245);
A. The summary of the facts charged is the chairperson, the secretary general, and the representative of the E non-emergency committee.
On September 23, 2015, the Defendants conspired to install 1 m (3m x 6m) containers, which are obstacles that may impede the structure and traffic of the road, without justifiable grounds, in the process of making a campaign to leave the road on the F-ro G on the G-ro roads.
B. (1) According to Article 114 and Article 75 of the Road Act, anyone is punished for piling-up of obstacles on roads or other acts impeding the structure of roads or traffic without justifiable grounds.
This provision is only applicable to the cases of acts stipulated in Article 75 of the Road Act on the roads listed in Article 10 of the Road Act, which are provided for the traffic of the general public, and cannot be viewed as applicable to the cases of places other than roads under the Road Act.
This is categorized as a road according to the public record of a place other than the road.
(2) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, insofar as the route was recognized in accordance with the procedure under Article 2 subparag. 1 and Article 11 of the Road Act, or the procedure under Article 108 of the Road Act and Article 99 of the Enforcement Decree of the Road Act was not implemented, it cannot be deemed as a road under Article 75 of the Road Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 82Do2109, Mar. 22, 1983; 2009Do11523, Nov. 11, 2010).
H The legal statement and the remaining evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone are not enough to regard the site of this case as a road provided for in Article 75 of the Road Act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.