logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.13 2016노3010
일반교통방해
Text

Defendant

B All appeals filed against Defendant A by the Prosecutor are dismissed.

Reasons

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant B1) In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant, along with other participants in the assembly from 21:13 to 21:44 on the day of the instant case, did not interfere with traffic by occupying the lanes before the road in front of the modern building, and was arrested at the time of India.

② Evidence photographs submitted by the prosecution include photographs of 22:49 (304 pages 8 of the list of evidence) taken from the time after the defendant was already arrested.

The evidence pictures against the defendant can not be used as evidence of guilt because the accurate time of filming can not be known.

2) The punishment of the lower court is heavy.

B. The prosecutor (Defendant A) - According to the evidence submitted by the prosecution, the defendant conspired with other participants in the assembly to occupy the road, such as the facts charged, and thereby interfere with traffic.

2. Determination

A. In light of Defendant B’s misunderstanding of the facts, misunderstanding of the legal doctrine, and legislative intent of the Assembly and Demonstration Act, in a case where the assembly or demonstration was conducted within the reported scope or was conducted differently from the reported contents, thereby causing interference with road traffic.

Even if there are no special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is established. However, in a case where the assembly or demonstration considerably deviates from the scope of the original report, or interferes with road traffic by seriously violating the conditions stipulated under the provisions of the Act, thereby making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass, barring special circumstances, it constitutes a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do755, Nov. 13, 2008). General traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime where traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic obstruction is practically impossible.

arrow