beta
Text
The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.
Reasons
1. Around December 10, 2010, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case: (a) around December 10, 2010, the Defendant installed the asphalt road (hereinafter “instant road”) installed on the ground of the instant land, which was installed on the ground that part of the front land C constituted the Defendant’s land, on the ground that part of the said land constituted the Defendant’s land; and (b) installed the pent road, which was installed on the ground of the said land, in order to prevent a person, such as D resident, or a vehicle from proceeding; and (c) at his discretion
Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the traffic of the land on which the general public and vehicles pass.
2. Determination
A. The meaning of "land-based interference" under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, the legal interest of which is the protection of traffic safety of the general public. The term "land-based" refers to a place of public traffic by the general public, namely, a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons, vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass
(Supreme Court Decision 99Do401 Decided April 27, 199, and Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13376 Decided February 25, 2010). B.
1) As to whether the road of this case constitutes the "land passage" of general traffic obstruction, it is insufficient to recognize the "land passage" of the general traffic obstruction as to whether the road of this case where the Defendant installed a pentice is a public place with public character where many and unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses freely pass through, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. (2) Rather, according to the witness E's testimony, the person passing the road of this case after August 2008 does not belong to E and his husband, and the witness F's testimony is also consistent (4,5 pages of the third trial date as to E). Thus, the road of this case is not a public place with public character where many and unspecified persons freely pass through (4,5 pages of the witness examination report as to F).
3. According to the conclusion, the facts charged in this case constitute a crime.