Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant fails to pay the above fine, 50,000 won shall be one day.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, around June 2009, set up a garage on the alleys through D (the passage between E site and community hall) from Ma and obstructed the traffic by making it impossible for the Defendant to pass through the land through which many and unspecified people pass without limiting it to a specific person.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Each legal statement of F, G, H, and I;

1. Application of the investigation report (Attachment of photographs) and the Acts and subordinate statutes governing site photographs;

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

1. Determination on the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act for the confinement of the workhouse

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that the surface of the facts charged in the instant case is not a road used for an unspecified number of traffic, and it does not constitute a traffic obstruction because people, despite the installation of a garage, can sufficiently pass through the instant vehicle. The defendant's installation of a garage on the instant road is around 2003, and thus the statute of limitations has expired on around 2010.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of which the legal interest is the protection of the general public’s traffic safety. It is established by causing damage to or influence of land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means so as to make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through. The term “land” here refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public. The ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or heavy and sound, etc. are not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007). The so-called abstract dangerous crime, where traffic is impossible or remarkably difficult, the traffic obstruction should not be practically caused.

Supreme Court Decision 2005.14