A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 7, 2016, the Defendant, at port-dong 198-1, laid down a 10-meter radius between the Dong and Dong, and 10-meter radius at the entrance of concrete road, the length of which is about 100 meters, strings of approximately 1m size into three gates, and connected 쇠s, via the above land, which is a place for public use.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each statement of C and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article 185 of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense, the choice of a fine (in consideration of the fact that the accused is the primary offender, the background of the litigation at the time when the accused

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

1. Determination as to the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The general traffic obstruction is not established merely on the space for the convenience of the occupants, such as concrete roads indicated in the facts constituting the crime (hereinafter “instant passage”) not on the road, but on the parking lot for apartment occupants, etc.

2. The purpose of the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass by by causing damage to or infusing land, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). The term “land access” refers to a place public for traffic by the general public, i.e., a place with public character in which many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass by the general public, without limiting it to a specific person.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do401, Apr. 27, 1999). In light of the records, the part on the left and right of the passage of this case is mainly about the occupants of the Rose of Sharon apartment.