Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who operates a 'C-free telecom' in Chungcheongnam-nam Budget Group B.

On August 26, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 07:00, around 07:00, set up one Embctor, which is broken down on the land of approximately 3 meters wide, owned by the Defendant, and obstructed traffic by installing three posts at the point of separation of the access road.

Summary of Evidence

1. The respective legal statements of the defendant and witness F

1. Each legal statement of witness G and H;

1. On-site map and each photograph;

1. Drawings of building layout;

1. A land use plan;

1. Cadastral land map;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (Submission of materials as a complainant), a report on investigation (on-site confirmation) and a report on investigation (in the event of the occurrence of a case), shall apply;

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. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. In order to prevent vehicles from falling down on the waterway, the Defendant’s main points of the allegation are set up a track to string down posts on the boundary of the road and the waterway and to lower the possibility of collision between vehicles, and did not cause interference with traffic and traffic.

2. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means, and the term “land access” here refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, the relation of traffic, or the right and duty of passage, or the traffic congestion, etc. are not prohibited (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do690, Apr. 26, 2002).