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

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant interfered with traffic by obstructing the flow of vehicles by the visitors to social welfare corporations E, who intend to pass the said roads by cutting down trees rinks, trees, etc. at the center of the roads on the land in Gyeyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoul, which were used for the general traffic among the patrolmen from the lower on April 2009 to the middle on February 2010, and neglecting vehicles.

Summary of Evidence

1. A legal statement made in part appropriate to the defendant's statements;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning F and G;

1. Cadastral map and photograph (from 27 to 31 pages of investigation records);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (on August 17, 2009, field photographs files);

1. Relevant Article 185 of the Criminal Act, the choice of punishment for the crime, the selection of fines (a point of interference with general traffic), and the selection of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his/her defense counsel regarding the assertion of the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the order of provisional payment is not the road which is the object of the general traffic obstruction, nor the passage on the land in Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu, Gyeyang-gu.

Even if immediately after that, the defendant's act does not constitute a crime because the defendant's act does not interfere with the passage of surrounding areas like the previous one by connecting and restoring roads to H land in Gyeyang-gu, Yangyang-gu, Yangyang-gu.

In light of the records, the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of protecting the safety of traffic of the general public, and the term "land passage" here refers to the wide passage of the land commonly used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relationship of the site, traffic rights relationship, or the multiple and hostileness of traffic users, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2112, Nov. 4, 1994). According to the records, the defendant sold the above J land on the side of the social welfare foundation E (hereinafter referred to as "E") around February 198 while he owned the land adjacent to each other.