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

On June 10, 2016, the Defendant, among the farmland owned by the Defendant in Pyeongtaek-gun C of Gyeonggi-do on June 10, 2016, installed two meters high on the entrance side of the land used as the land, and then set up a hacker column of two meters high on the entrance side between them, and prohibited unauthorized passage because it is a reason for this land.

“To interfere with the traffic of the land by installing a banner containing the word “a banner”.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Complaint, list of complainants, protocol of oral statement made by the police against D, and written confirmation of each fact;

1. On-site photographs, aerial photographys, investigation reports (on-site photographs);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to inquiries, such as criminal history;

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 issue of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order, the Defendant and the defense counsel did not have any intention to obstruct traffic by exercising legitimate ownership, since the instant road was first constructed illegally and was restored to its original state by the Defendant’s civil petition system, and since no later public use was made thereafter, it does not constitute “road” of interference with general traffic. The Defendant did not have any intention to commit a crime of interference with traffic as stated in the facts charged in the instant case.

The argument is asserted.

The purpose of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to, or interference with, the traffic safety of the general public as legal interests protected by the law, and by causing damage to, or interference with the traffic by other means. Here, the term “land access” refers to a place of public traffic, namely, a place of public nature in which an unspecified number of people or a vehicle can freely pass by, and in fact, it refers to a place of public traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1376, Feb. 25, 2010).