logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2015.11.12 2014고정251
일반교통방해
Text

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

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, the Defendants did not pay the fine.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

D The chairperson of the FJ, the owner of the E forest land of 41,848 square meters, the defendant A, the manager of the above clan, the defendant B, the person working for the above clan from 2011 to the general manager, and the part of the above forest was installed a passage passage to the above G, H and I forest land and used for land use.

The Defendants conspired to hold a clan clan meeting on March 201 and resolved not to use the said three parcels of forest land in the above passage route by installing a hacks and installing a sign to suspend use of the land and a hacks, thereby hindering traffic by making motor vehicles, etc. difficult to pass on the land.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Each legal statement of the witness J and K;

1. Protocol concerning the interrogation of the Defendants by the prosecution

1. Statement of each prosecutor's office concerning J, K and L;

1. Each police statement concerning M;

1. A complaint book, a certified copy of each forestry map, and a forestry cadastral book;

1. Each photograph [the purpose of the crime 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 infusing land, etc. or obstructing traffic by other means, and the "land passage" here refers to a wide range of the land passage that is actually common use for the traffic of the general public, and it does not include ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or heavy and red drinking, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do717, Feb. 28, 2007; Supreme Court Decision 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007; the road in this case was used by many unspecified village residents to use it for heating, and the present number of people using it, such as J, etc.

arrow