Defendant

A shall be punished by a fine for negligence of KRW 1,000,000, and by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

The Defendants respectively.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is the owner of Da and E, Defendant B is the owner of F and G, and H was a person who was planned to engage in construction with permission for development activities on the ground of the opening of access roads at J, K and L located at the end of the roads passing through I and F, which are owned by the said Defendants.

On July 14, 2014, around 10:00, the Defendants thought that the Defendants would not allow H to pass the roads and prevent them from doing the above development activities. Defendant A her 2 strings on each side of the roads. Defendant B her strings by using strings and strings, attached strings to the middle part of the strings using strings and strings and strings, and Defendant A her strings and strings, and Defendant A her strings and strings on the 20th of the same month following the 20th of the same month.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to cause interference with traffic by causing it to go through land.

Summary of Evidence

1. The Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Each police statement made against H, N, orO;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each internal investigation report (Attachment of field photographs), requests for cooperation in investigation, investigation reports (Attachment of satellite maps around the site of the case), investigation reports (report on investigation results of visual video recording) and investigation reports;

1. Relevant Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act and the Defendants’ choice of punishment concerning criminal facts: Articles 185 and 30 of the Criminal Act and the choice of fines

1. Defendants to be detained in the workhouse: Articles 70(1) and 69(2) of the Criminal Act;

1. Defendants of the provisional payment order: Determination on the Defendants and their defense counsel’ assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The Defendants and their defense counsel regarding the assertion that the Defendants do not constitute “land access” is the criminal law, since the structure of the instant farm road is closed, its users are limited to several arables, and its right bypass.