logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 홍성지원 2013.07.10 2013고정98
일반교통방해
Text

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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, on September 28, 2012, installed 1m and 25m in length (hereinafter “instant pents”) on the roads installed in Chungcheongnam-gun Hong-gun B (hereinafter “instant roads”) on the ground that it was confirmed as owned by his father C as the result of a boundary survey. The Defendant, between around 09:00 and 15:00, on September 28, 2012, installed pents (hereinafter “instant pents”).

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the passage of the person and the vehicle.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police statement made to D, E, and F;

1. Application of four on-site photographs of the statutes;

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

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

1. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the assertion is that the road of this case is used as a usual parking lot, and does not fall under the “land” as prescribed in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and the road of this case is a legitimate act, since the road of this case is installed in order to verify the Defendant’s land boundary.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence in the judgment of this court which duly completed the investigation, namely, the "land passage" under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to the land passage widely used for the passage of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or a large number of traffic participants, etc. are not taken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 94Do2112, Nov. 4, 1994). The road of this case appears to be "land passage" as well as "land passage," which has been commonly used for the passage of the general public for a long time from the land passage through which neighboring residents, such as F, etc., are located as the parking space of this case, as alleged by the defendant.

arrow