logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 밀양지원 2016.11.17 2016고정149
일반교통방해
Text

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

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Reasons

Criminal facts

The defendant is the owner of the farm road and the land C when the defendant is fast.

On May 25, 2016, the Defendant, on the concrete road of about 30 meters in length located above C, and on the concrete road of 3 meters in width, attached a string, 5 strings in length over approximately 160cm in length, strings over 13 meters in length, by sticking a string and fixing a wring of wrings.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the police suspect interrogation protocol against the defendant;

1. Statement made to D by the police;

1. A complaint;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to report on investigation (on-site investigations and photographs);

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes;

1. Selection of an alternative fine to impose a sentence (the method by which the accused passes the road in this case, whether to restore the place to the original state, the penal power of the accused, etc.);

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order;

1. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Procedure Act, based on the conviction of Article 186 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, is to punish all acts of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which are protected by the legal interest of the general public, such as causing damage to or infusing land, etc., or hindering traffic by other means, thereby making it impossible or remarkably difficult. Here, the term “landway” refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or traffic right relation, or traffic congestion, etc. are not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007; 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007).

arrow