Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On June 20, 2017, the Defendant purchased the above land on a road located in Pyeongtaek-gun B around 08:00 and maintained only a passage of 120 cm wide on the ground that the land owner is a landowner, and obstructed the traffic of the road on the ground that the Defendant cannot pass through the road, such as a horse, a motor vehicle, by installing a iron pent, with the width of 120 cm left.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of the witness C and D;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a investigation report (in addition, submission of a land use plan outside of the case), investigation report (in the case, submission of evidentiary materials other than the case

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 185 of the Criminal Act selective punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

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

1. The gist of the assertion is that the part of the private land, which was used by a certain small number of people using the fences of neighboring land, was used in diameter leading to their meritorious services, is nothing more than the private land, and it is not the only passage connected to their meritorious services. Thus, it does not constitute “land” as defined by the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

2. The crime of interference with general traffic is a crime of protecting the safety of the general public’s traffic. Here’s “land passage” refers to the wide passage of land that is actually common use for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relationship of the site, traffic relationship, or the right and duty of passage, or traffic of the persons passing through, is not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court, the part of the land at the time of the instant case function as a public road for the traffic of the general public.

It is reasonable to view it.

1) As between the instant land and the instant land and the land owned by an individual, there exists a road set up on the ground of 1,135 square meters on the land of the State in Pyeongtaek-gun F. F. 1,135 square meters in a city with a view to KRW 3,951 square meters, the said road is F. of