Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant applied for a subsidy to the head of the Si/Gun in order to raise sacrine trees on the land owned by the head of the Gu/Si/Gun in North Korea, but deemed that the said application was rejected due to interference with the victim D. In mind, the Defendant interfered with the victim’s felling duties, such as raising awareness that the said victim would not use the FF side of the same Gun, which is the only passage through the North Gun E, prior to the cutting of his/her timber work, by using the sacrick on March 30, 2017. On March 30, 2017, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the traffic of the above sacrick on the land by using the sacrick in the above farming road; (b) obstructed the flow of the sacr by the land; and (c) preventing the said victim from carrying

Summary of Evidence

1. Entry of the defendant in part in the first trial record;

1. Statement of the witness D and G in the second public trial protocol;

1. Witness of H;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including D/D statements);

1. Each protocol of suspect interrogation of the police against the accused (includingG statements);

1. Complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (on-site verification);

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with general traffic) and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (Punishments imposed on a person who commits a crime of interfering with general traffic heavier than punishment);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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

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

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The farmland recorded in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court (hereinafter “the farmland of this case”) is merely a road used by the farmers on the neighboring land for intermittent purposes, and does not constitute a place used for free communication of the general public. Thus, the obstruction of general traffic cannot be established.

2) In addition, the Defendant intends to set a farming house on the land owned by the Defendant, adjacent to the instant farming road.