Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant: (B) Gyeongbuk-gu; (3)

C. It is the land owner.

On March 2019, the Defendant: (a) laid down 6 girs of seedlings, the species of which cannot be known on the farm road B in the name of the Defendant; and (b) laid down girs on the farm road above 2.5 meters in width of entry points in the above farm road at the time after the said date, thereby hindering traffic by preventing the use of the above farm road, which is a place for public traffic of the general public.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A report on investigation (on the spot search);

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order asserts that the road of this case does not constitute land which is the object of the general traffic obstruction order.

"General traffic obstruction" in Article 185 of the Criminal Act means a place of public traffic safety for the general public, namely, a place of public traffic safety, and a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are able to freely pass through without limiting it to a specific person.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Do401 delivered on April 27, 199, etc.). In other words, "land of a general traffic obstruction" is not necessarily required to the extent to which vehicles and horses move, and even though it is difficult for vehicles and horses to walk, if there is a public nature through which many unspecified persons walk, it constitutes land.

Considering the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court, the road of this case is not only used for vehicle and horse traffic, but also used for the traffic of many and unspecified people, and it is considered that it constitutes a land which is a public place for the traffic of the general public.

① This case.