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

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

Criminal facts

The defendant is the owner of the Gyeyang-gu, Ansan-si C dry field.

The road was installed between the Defendant's dry field and D's above E site, and used for the passage of the general public.

The above road is a main passage used by village residents for the purpose of farming land and farming land, etc., and even though there are other roads, it should return to the remote distance, and even according to the certificate of land use planning in Ansan-si, it can be seen that the road is planned to be a road site and is used for the passage of the general public.

1. On February 201, 201, the Defendant obstructed traffic by planting about about 30 meters trees among the sections of the road, the width of which is about 2 meters wide, and preventing the passage of cars, agricultural machinery, etc. from passing through.

2. On March 26, 2015, the Defendant obstructed the traffic by putting up soil and rocks on the same road at a height of about one meter and preventing them from passing through the road.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the court (the defendant and his defense counsel) is the part of the F land, etc. between the land of the family court in Ansan-si and the E land owned by the D (hereinafter referred to as "the land of this case").

(1) The Dissenting Opinion argues that the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act does not constitute “land” as referred to in the crime of interference with general traffic. Since the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of protecting the interests and interests of the general public’s traffic safety, “land” refers to a place of public traffic by general public, a place of public traffic again refers to a place of public traffic, and a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or horses are allowed to freely pass through, without limit to a specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Do2617, Sept. 11, 1984; 9Do401, Apr. 27, 1999). The following circumstances recognized by the following evidence, namely, ① the land in this case is derived from one place as intended and consisting of several generations, and then the boundary of the village that is