beta
Text
Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.
If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
On November 3, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around 15:00 to 18:00; (b) at the entrance of the shape D owned by the Defendant located in Gangwon-do Crossing-gun; (c) he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he stored a gravel on the road in this present condition; and (d) he stored it up with soil; and (e) he stored a tree, etc. and laid it up a pool, and interfered with the traffic of the road from time to time by using a horse, Track, cream, truck, private use, etc.
Summary of Evidence
1. Partial statement of the defendant;
1. Each testimony of witness E and F;
1. Application of each statute on photographs;
1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;
1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;
1. Judgment on the assertion by the Defendant and the defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act
1. It is not a crime because it creates a bypass under the prior agreement with the assertion E and prevents the present status of this case.
2. Determination
A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest of the safety of traffic in the general public is protecting the safety of traffic in the general public. The term "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land used for the traffic in the general public. It does not go through the ownership of the site, the relationship of traffic rights, or the large and hostileness of traffic users (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651, Jul. 27, 1999).
In light of the above legal principles, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant first agreed with E prior to the closure of the present situation road, and even if there was a family prior agreement, the obstruction of general traffic is the legal interest protected by the law of the safety of traffic of the general public. Thus, the E’s consent on the closure of the present situation road of this case does not interfere with the establishment of the crime, nor was
The general traffic obstruction is not established.
Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument.