logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.10.26 2017노1243
일반교통방해
Text

All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A1) Whether Defendant A and B had installed facilities on the D and E, the land owned by Defendant A and B.

Since the F did not install facilities above, there is no general traffic obstruction such as facts charged that the F obstructed roads.

2) The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B, C’s sentence (each fine of KRW 2 million on Defendant B and C) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act regarding Defendant A’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts refers to a crime of protecting the general public’s traffic safety, which practically refers to a crime of protecting the general public’s traffic safety. The term “land passage” refers to the wide range of the land passage through which is actually common use in the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, the traffic relationship, or the traffic relation or the traffic relation, or the passage of the traffic

As a so-called abstract dangerous crime, traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic interference is not practically necessary (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 2017Do11408, Jan. 24, 2018). The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and investigated at the court below, namely, ① the passage route on the road above the Thai City F (owner's country, land category) (hereinafter referred to as "the passage of this case") was established for the convenience of farmers who live in farming areas around the surrounding land and continued to use it as a concrete package of a large amount of 30 meters wide, and the passage of a vehicle appears to have been used as a concrete package of this case, ② Defendant A and B are accessible to the passage of this case for the purpose of traffic interference with the passage of the land at the home of this case, ③ the passage of this case at the time of purchase and sale of the land at the home of this case.

arrow