The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. On March 14, 2011, the Defendant: (a) was awarded a successful bid for a house on the ground of the Namyang-gun, Namyang-gun; and (b) on August 1, 2012, the victim D registered the transfer of ownership on land E.

On November 28, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking registration of creation of superficies against a victim to use his/her own house, and acquired a legal suspension commercial zone for the part necessary for the maintenance or use of the building site (Seoul District Court Decision 2013Gadan 36724, hereinafter “Attachment D”), and the said part “D” was used as a vehicle after the victim performed flat work for road traffic.

Around 15:30 on April 3, 2016, the Defendant reported that the victim’s vehicle was parked in the victim’s residence located in the above E area. The Defendant parked the Defendant’s F F F F F F F F FF car on the land that acquired the suspension commercial zone, and was requested by the police officer in receipt of the victim to move the vehicle from the victim to another place, and then moved the said mother F FF car to the other place upon receiving a request from the police officer called the victim’s report, and subsequently, he obstructed the traffic by blocking the victim’s vehicle from entering the above place until 20:00 on the same day. From around 10:00 of the same month, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s access to the vehicle by installing one container at the size of 3 meters in width and 2 meters in length on the “D” part of the land located in the above E area, the commercial zone for suspension of the traffic of the victim.

2. Determination

A. Legal doctrine is a crime of interference with general traffic safety under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a place in which public traffic safety is protected by the law. The term “land access” refers to a place in which public traffic is used for the general public, i.e., a place in which an unspecified number of people or horse can freely pass through without any specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do401, Apr. 27, 1999). B. In this case, this court has a public nature.