A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On January 21, 2011, the Defendant purchased approximately KRW 328 of the total purchase price of KRW 200 million, and paid KRW 100 million to H on March 21, 2011 on the day the down payment is KRW 20,000,000,000 on March 21, 201, on the ground that he/she himself/herself owns the part payment of KRW 100,000,000,000,000 on March 9, 2015, which was used as a road from March 21, 2015, thereby interfering with traffic by raising soil using scrakes on the road’s upper part of the wife population, and 2) interfere with traffic by the aforementioned method on July 1, 2

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. Application of each fact-finding certificate, field photographing statutes;

1. As to the facts constituting an offense, Article 185 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines (the Defendant and his defense counsel opened a bypass in the vicinity, and thus, the act recorded in the facts charged does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic.

However, the purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, etc., or interference with traffic by other means, as a crime involving the protection of the legal interests of the general public. Here, the term “land access” refers to a wide range of land passage which is actually common use for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, the relation of the traffic right, or the right and duty of passage, or the traffic congestion, etc. are not prohibited (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). In addition, there is another alternative means to replace traffic interference such as land.

Even if such circumstance does not affect the establishment of a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do10560, Jan. 30, 2009). Thus, as alleged by the defendant for domestic affairs, the construction of a bypass road at the same time as the act entered in the facts charged was transferred or done, as alleged by the defendant for domestic affairs.

(b)if any;