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

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

Punishment of the crime

On March 1, 2015, from around 21:40 to 22:20 on the same day, the Defendant set up some of the DNA Rabing vehicles owned by oneself at the middle of the road while the housing near Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government was located on the side road, and the neighboring residents and parking problems were cut off.

Summary of Evidence

1. Each legal statement of witness E and F;

1. A letter of arrest of a flagrant offender (A);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on investigation (to listen to the situation at the time other than the police officer dispatched);

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. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that since they parked in the parking space of the defendant and set off a car inevitably in the same space as the criminal facts, they moved voluntarily around 22:08 as the police officer demanded, they moved the car voluntarily. Thus, they do not intend to obstruct traffic and interfere with traffic between 40 minutes.

In light of the above evidence, the above evidence reveals that ① the police officer requested the moving of the vehicle to the defendant by moving the vehicle at around 21:40 after receiving a report from the defendant's vehicle installed at the middle of the road, and the other vehicle cannot pass through the road, but the defendant did not respond to the request by asserting that the vehicle should move first because the vehicle is parked in his own parking space; ② the police officer around 22:20 arrested the defendant as a flagrant offender interfering with general traffic, and then moves the defendant vehicle to another location. In full view of this, the defendant's installation of the vehicle at the middle of the road as stated in the facts constituting a crime and interfered with the traffic, and there was an intention to interfere with the traffic at the time

Recognized.

Defendant

The above assertion by the defense counsel is not accepted.