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

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

Punishment of the crime

1. On August 2017, the Defendant interfered with general traffic, which was owned by the Defendant, made a steel door on the Hanam Budget-gun C response, and around three meters wide packaging roads in D, and opened the door locked by locking it. In a way that the door lockeds to the public.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with traffic.

2. In such a way as to interfere with traffic at the time, place, etc. of the above paragraph (1), the Defendant interfered with the victim’s activities by force by blocking the only road from around September 6, 2015 where the victim E passed for planting trees and trees.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness E;

1. Statement made by the police for E;

1. Application of the following guiding Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint filing statement, aerial photography, on-site photographs (the seventh page of evidence record), and:

1. Articles 185 and 314 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense;

1. Articles 40 and 50 of the Criminal Act of ordinary concurrent crimes (Punishments imposed on a person who commits a crime of interfering with general traffic heavier than punishment);

1. Selection of an alternative fine for punishment;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Summary of the assertion

A. The above packing roads do not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic, since the packaging was conducted in the budget group to enter a house owned by the defendant, which is one of the primary features on the road, and it was not installed for the passage of many and unspecified persons.

B. Since the victim obtained permission to engage in a specific wood business without obtaining permission from the Defendant for land use and obtaining access roads necessary for his/her business, this constitutes an illegal business, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of interference with business.

2. Determination

A. “Interference with the general traffic safety” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime that legally protects the traffic safety of the general public, and in fact, refers to a crime that interferes with the traffic safety of the general public.