logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 군산지원 2015.11.06 2015고정143
일반교통방해
Text

The defendant shall be innocent.

Reasons

1. The summary of the facts charged reveals that the Defendant interfered with traffic by setting up six chemical cancers on the ground of the land in the Hasan-si (hereinafter “instant land”) located in the Hasan-si (hereinafter “Hasan-si”), from June 2014 to October 2014, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to pass through the vehicle.

2. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish any act of causing damage to, or influence to, the traffic safety of the general public by causing damage to, or influence to, the passage of the general public by other means, and thereby to make it impossible or considerably difficult. Here, the term “land access” refers to a place which actually refers to a land passage through the general public for traffic traffic, and the ownership relation of the site, the relation of the traffic, or the relation of the traffic, or the relation of the traffic, is a place of public character in which many and unspecified persons or motor vehicles and horses are able to freely pass through without being limited to a specific person.

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the records of this case, are examined: (a) it is difficult to regard the instant land as a place of public nature with which many unspecified vehicles can freely pass through; and (b) there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On October 27, 2010, the Defendant acquired the land and its ground and buildings (hereinafter “Defendant’s each real estate”) on the land outside C and three lots outside C, including the instant land, at auction. D, on September 12, 2012, acquired E large 704 square meters on the land and newly constructed a detached house on the land around 2013. The housing of the complainant is located at the place of entry into the 250 meters depending on the path connected to the instant land.

2. The Defendant considers that there exists a risk of traffic accident when vehicles move from one’s house to another after leaving the instant land.

arrow