Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is a person who owns a road to Hongcheon-gun C.

around 14:00 on December 7, 2016, the Defendant obstructed the traffic of vehicles and many unspecified persons by installing a container stuff with a size of 6 meters wide, three meters each on the road, on the ground that the said road is owned by himself/herself, on the village access road located at a point of approximately 50 meters away from the above place.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness D and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on internal investigation;

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

1. Determination on the assertion by the Defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The gist of the argument is F. The road of this case is only one used by a specific person, with only three households, and since a person or a car has obstructed sufficient passage, it cannot be deemed that the defendant committed a crime of interference with general traffic.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or influence of land, etc., or interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1926, Jul. 10, 2014). The term "land through interference with general traffic" refers to the land passage through which is actually common use for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site or the relation of the traffic or the traffic relationship of the traffic manager is not widely known, and there is a large number of traffic visitors, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651, Jul. 27, 199).