The defendant is not guilty. The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the above judgment shall be published.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is that the defendant is the chairman of the council of occupants' representatives, the above C apartment complex 1 and the two complexes are divided into urban planning roads with a width of not less than 8 meters. On December 28, 2006, when the approval of the apartment project was granted on December 28, 2006, a winter line system was established to enable the outside Jin and Access Road system to enter one complex through a traffic impact assessment through a passage of not less than 12 meters within the two complexes. On October 2010, it was allowed for the first complex residents to enter the two complexes through the above transit road while managing the road in the two complexes after completion, and it was allowed for the first complex residents to enter the two complexes through the above transit road, and it was peaceful for two years until June 30, 2012.

On June 15, 2012, the Defendant held a council of occupants' representatives of two complexes and resolved to restrict the passage of one complex vehicle by a majority of the representatives of occupants of two complexes on the ground that the above passing roads are owned by two complexes.

According to the above resolution, in order to restrict the entry of one complex residents from July 1, 2012 to November 7, 2012, the Defendant: (a) removed the number of vehicle numbers of one complex residents already registered in the blocking machine installed on the access road to the two complex; and (b) instructed the blocking machine to prevent entry other than the vehicle of the residents of the two complex; and (c) obstructed general traffic by preventing the passage of 9 residents of the first complex.

2. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish any act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to or influence of land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Here, the term “land access” is the place where the passage of the general public is used for the traffic safety.