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

1. No person shall destroy or fire a road, waterway, or bridge, or obstruct traffic by any other means;

Nevertheless, on July 2014, the Defendant interfered with the traffic by installing a steel door, etc. on a farming road near C in Chungcheongju-si.

2. The Defendant interfered with the duties of the Defendant, at the same time and place as the foregoing No. 1. Paragraph 1., and at around 2014, transplanted trees of 107 drinking trees from each room D, etc., and obstructed the victim E’s business by force by preventing the victim E from using the same method as the above No. 1.1.

Summary of Evidence

1. A statement to the effect that a steel door has been installed on the farm road, such as the statement in the ruling, in this court of the defendant;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Each report on investigation;

1. Consent letter of land use, notification of permission for diversion of farmland, and permission for diversion of farmland;

1. Application of statutes on site photographs;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act (a point of interference with general traffic) and Article 314 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (Punishments imposed on a person who commits a crime of interfering with general traffic heavier than punishment);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

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/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The farming roads as indicated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment on the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel (hereinafter “the farming roads of this case”) are established by the defendant on the land owned by the defendant for the purpose of cultivating his orchard, and the passage is permitted only to F1 person.

Therefore, the farm road of this case cannot be seen as a place provided for the traffic of the general public, and even if the defendant prevented the traffic, it cannot be said that the crime of interference with general traffic cannot be established.

B. A child passes by the defendant.