1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 4, 2014, at around 10:10, the Plaintiff operated B vehicles owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) on the front of the information center for B, such as B, located in the Daegu-gu merchants’ Dong (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) and became a guard due to the intersection between the vehicle and the vehicle having drinking in the opposite part.

B. During the dispute over the driving of the other party vehicle, the Plaintiff set up the instant vehicle on the road, set up a train, set up a train, and left the site, and left the instant vehicle until 10:30 after leaving the site.

C. On the same day, the Plaintiff was arrested as an offender in the act of committing an act of committing an act of committing an offense pursuant to the Assistant C and Inspector D, who was dispatched to the site after receiving a report at around 10:38 on the same day, and was sent back to the merchant area.

On March 27, 2015, the Plaintiff was convicted of a fine of KRW 500,00 on the grounds of the crime that the Plaintiff left the instant vehicle while driving on the road as seen above at the Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch, and obstructed the traffic of the road, and was sentenced to a fine of KRW 50,000 due to the obstruction of general traffic and the violation of the Road Traffic Act (2015, 43), and the said judgment became final and conclusive on April 4, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap’s evidence 7, 8, Eul’s evidence 1 through 4, Gap’s evidence 2-1 through 15, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff committed an act that constitutes the elements of the crime of interference with general traffic, but was already in a state of not recognizing the temporary contact by leaving the place where the crime was committed, and the plaintiff's own intent to accompany the police officer to attend an investigative agency, and thus, the arrest of the plaintiff was illegal because it did not meet the legitimate requirements as a arrest

In addition, even though the plaintiff was able to take his hand in the future, police officers were unable to wear the arms, and the police officers continued to wear the arms again, and even after they were sent back to the earth, they continued to wear the arms excessively.

The plaintiff.