logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2014.04.15 2013노568
일반교통방해
Text

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Reasons

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the court below acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged, or erred by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, despite the fact that the Defendant found the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case, by misunderstanding the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined that the crime of interference with general traffic as prescribed in Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established when it damages, destroys, or makes it impossible or considerably difficult for the general public to pass by and from the road, etc. In so doing, the lower court acquitted the charges of this case on the ground that the Defendant was found to have installed a wire-conditioning network with soil, but the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is insufficient to recognize that the passage of the vehicle becomes impossible or considerably difficult due to the Defendant’s above act, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. The purpose of obstruction of general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass through by destroying or infusing land, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means, which are crimes of which the legal interest is the protection of the general public’s traffic safety.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4662 Decided December 14, 2007, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted by the lower court and the first instance court through the examination of evidence, namely, ① the Defendant constructed the instant road on the said land while running the quarrying business around 1998. The Defendant, including village residents, did not have any particular hindrance to the passage of unspecified people including the village residents by using vehicles, etc., and the vehicle part of the road can cross.

arrow