The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

Punishment of the crime

On December 8, 2011, the Defendant interfered with the traffic by preventing the flow of vehicles that he/she intends to pass through the said road by connecting two chains installed adjacent to each of the above roads, on the ground that the said road was installed on the ground on the land owned by the Defendant, on the ground that it was installed on the ground that the said road was installed on the land owned by the Defendant.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of the statement made by the prosecution against the defendant (including the D substitute part);

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes concerning field photographs and submission of reference materials;

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

2. Penalty surcharge of 1,000,000 won to be suspended; and

3. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act (50,000 won per day) of the Criminal Act for the inducement of a workhouse.

4. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the passage of this case does not constitute the land of the general traffic obstruction under Article 59 (1) of the Criminal Code (the process leading up to the crime of this case, situation before and after the crime of this case, etc.) of the suspended sentence (the defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the passage of this case does not constitute the land of the general traffic obstruction. However, the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Code refers to the crime of protecting the safety of traffic in the general public, and in fact, the "land passage" refers to the passage of land commonly used for the general public. It refers to the land ownership relation, traffic right relation, or passage relation, or the passage of the passage of the person who is large and hostile (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651, Jul. 27, 199). In light of the circumstance, use relation, status, etc. of the passage of this case recognized by the evidence of this case, the defendant and his defense counsel's assertion are not accepted.