logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2014.02.13 2013고정535
일반교통방해
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

Between May 30, 2013 and May 31, 2013, the Defendant operated a “D restaurant” in the following city, and obstructed traffic by piling up bricks at a height of 25 meters in length, 1.3 meters in width, 1.3 meters in width, and 1.5 meters in height, and installing concrete bricks to block the said alley.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. Protocol of inspection by this Court;

1. Cadastral map;

1. Application of the statutes governing airlines around the building owned by the complainant;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the defense counsel’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The defense counsel in the summary of the argument asserts that it does not constitute the land stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Code in the length of the frame stated in the ruling.

2. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest of the general traffic safety of the general public is protected. The term “land access” refers to a place of public passage by and from the general public, that is, a place of public character where many and unspecified people, vehicles, and horses are able to freely pass through, without limited to a specific person. As long as it is recognized as land, no ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or traffic relation or heavy and hostile drinking, etc. are committed

(See Supreme Court Decisions 9Do401 delivered on April 27, 199, 2001Do6903 delivered on April 26, 2002, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as follows: (i) the alleyway in the judgment is linking the G market with the private distance near the YGGGG market; (ii) there are more roads connected to the G market near the YGGG market in addition to the above alleyway; (iii) the above alley road can reach the G market rapidly through the above alley road; and (iv) the above alley road is constructed on the HG land adjacent to the land of the YGGG and its adjacent land.

arrow