Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On September 4, 2017, when the Defendant discovered that part of the above land was used as a alleyway as a result of a survey conducted on and around September 4, 2017, the Defendant installed a boundary marking product with a height of 1.5m high, a width of 1.32m high, a height of 1.5m high, and a length of 15m high and obstructed land traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The legal statement of the witness C;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to C;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes of each photograph (Evidence Nos 2 and 14);

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 185 of the Criminal Act selective punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Determination as to the defense counsel’s assertion under Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act, which are confined in a workhouse

1. The defense counsel's defense counsel's assertion asserts to the effect that the above alley does not constitute land for interference with general traffic.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by this court, “land” as stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a land passage through which the passage of the general public is widely used, and the ownership relation, traffic relationship, or passage right and/or pass-by-passer is not prohibited (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002, etc.). (B) According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, the above alley has been used as a passage of many unspecified people, including residents of neighboring houses over several hundred thousands, and it is recognized that the width of the part available for passage among the above alleys is reduced to at least 44 cm due to the boundary marking materials installed by the defendant, and the above alley road constitutes a obstruction of general traffic as an area where many unspecified people freely pass through, and it is considerably difficult to pass the above alley road due to the above a road traffic marking.

Therefore, the defense counsel's above assertion is rejected.

The reason for sentencing is as well as the reason for sentencing.