The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and Defendant B’s incidental appeal are all dismissed.

2. Costs due to an appeal.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 3, 2018, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on or around 22:08, and tried to start a stop for the signal waiting at three-lanes in front of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Gwanak-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City Seoul Special Metropolitan City, following Defendant B’s defect in building the crosswalk, the Plaintiff’s light seat, and the Plaintiff’s refund to the end of the judgment.

“Along with sound.”

Accordingly, Defendant B stated that “a person rather than a signal is given priority,” and the Plaintiff reported to 112 to the Plaintiff, who did not drive the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle by blocking it.

B. Upon receiving the Plaintiff’s report, the police officers belonging to the Seongbuk Police Station in Seoul, which was called after a flooded area, were accompanied by the consent of the Plaintiff and Defendant B, but at the time, Defendant B did not conduct a separate investigation after being under the influence of alcohol, and the Plaintiff prepared and submitted a written statement of the victim.

(c)

On January 9, 2018, police officers belonging to the Seoul Gwanak Police Station shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than ten years or by a fine not exceeding 15 million won, for a person who, immediately after the investigation conducted with Defendant B on January 9, 2018, damages or destroys, destroys, or destroys a road, waterway, or bridge, or obstructs traffic by any other means, under Article 185 (General Traffic Obstruction) of the Criminal Act.

As to the suspicion, the proviso of the investigation prepared a written statement of the offender stated as "voluntary accompanying report", and conducted the interrogation of the suspect against the defendant B.

Since then, the police did not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic by temporarily obstructing the passage of vehicles by blocking roads, and based on the Supreme Court precedents, the police sent the case to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office.

(d)

The plaintiff confirmed the result of the non-prosecution disposition against the defendant B and filed a petition to the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office, but the decision was concluded on February 23, 2018 on the ground that no new circumstance exists to change the decision.

E. The plaintiff filed a second petition with the Seoul Central District Public Prosecutor's Office, and the defendant.