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

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

On November 14, 2012, from around November 14, 2012 to around the 15th of the same month, the Defendant planted a pipe with a size of 30 square meters in part of the above land in order to prevent many and unspecified persons from passing through, such as a change of the neighboring land owner, E, F, and fishing, from the land owned by the Defendant in Ulsan Metropolitan City, Ulsan-gun.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged or imprisoned the land, or obstructed the traffic by other means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E, G, F, H, I, and J;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (Submission of a complainant, outer investigation, submission of materials by a suspect, submission of a decision on provisional disposition for prohibition of interference with passage, etc., attachment of field 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 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The alleged defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the passage route of this case was not long to the middle part, and only three persons using the above passage, and it is not to pass by many unspecified persons.

2. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the benefit and protection of the traffic safety of the general public is the crime of protecting the traffic safety of the general public. Here, the term "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land used for the traffic of the general public. It does not go through the ownership relation of the site, the traffic right relation, or the large and hostile manner of traffic users, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007; 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). In light of all the circumstances such as the situation of the road passage of this case, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court, the time of its establishment, and the situation of its use, etc., the passage of this case is de facto public and is provided for interference with general traffic.