Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

On August 22, 2017, from around 06:40 to August 13:30, 2017, the Defendant interfered with the passage of residents around the surrounding area by parking a vehicle (kene, D) with a public notice to the effect that “the above roadside trees are owned by the Defendant, and it is prohibited from driving the vehicle from August 23, 2017,” as the title “Prohibition of Vehicle Traffic” in the head of Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Prohibition of Vehicle Traffic”) and “the above roadside trees are owned by the Defendant.”

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes on documents submitted by the complainant and documents submitted by suspects;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 185 of the Criminal Act selective punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. As to the assertion of the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant and his defense counsel gave a deduction of the vehicle at any time at the request of the residents since the width of the instant route was wided to four meters, and there was no inconvenience for the residents to travel, and where necessary, posted a motor vehicle height inside the vehicle so that neighboring residents can move the said vehicle by themselves, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute a general traffic obstruction.

The argument is asserted.

The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the benefit and protection of the traffic safety of the general public is a legal interest. Here, the term "land passage" refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public. It does not lead to ownership of a site, ownership of a right and duty of passage, or a large number of persons passing through the road, or hostilely, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007). In addition, an act of making the passage of a vehicle available for passage of the previous time impossible by significantly restricting one street constitutes a interference with general traffic (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10560, Jan. 30, 2009), and a interference with general traffic is impossible or considerably difficult as an abstract risk crime.