Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is residing in the Gyeongsan-si B, and the victim C is growing the farmland of the Gyeong-si, Gyeongsan-si, his own, as the weekend farm. 1. The defendant of the 2020 High 1556 High Do 1556, July 11, 2020

7.26.

7.31. &

8.2. When parking the above-unclaimed vehicle, which is owned by the Defendant, on the Korean-style land in the area of about 3m of the width in the city of Busan, which is connected to the farmland of the above D cultivated by the victim, it made it significantly difficult for the victim, etc. to pass through the land for the general public including the victim, etc.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with traffic by blocking the passage through the land.

2. The Defendant, from around 15:00 on September 9, 2020 to around 17:30 on the same day, from around 15:0 on September 15, 2020 to around 17:30 on the road of the width located near the F of Gyeongsan City, prevented the victim from entering a dry field by preventing access road to one’s own Gunst vehicle, thereby making it considerably difficult for the victim and the general public to pass through the above land for official use.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant on the second public trial date;

1. A statement of each of C 112 reported cases;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes on site photographs;

1. Relevant Article of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting a crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act provides that the defendant himself/herself expands and causes inconvenience to the victim who cultivates adjoining farmland by blocking only a multiple way of passage. However, regardless of who has opened and managed a route as indicated in the judgment in the court, it is recognized that interference with passage would go against the law, regardless of who has opened and managed it, and that he/she is promising not to stop the passage again in the future, and the victim is also superior without sufficient consultation with the defendant.