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

On March 6, 2017, the Defendant obstructed traffic by installing a breaker (65cm, length 250cm, length 130cm, length 3,680cm) on the above road to prevent the passage of an unspecified number of people, vehicles, etc. who passed the said road, in order to prevent the passage of the adjoining Party C, etc., who had not been given appraisal due to the problems such as the construction of pipes and bridges for water supply.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each legal statement of witness C, D, and E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes for field photographs, copies of cadastral map, and investigation reporting;

1. Relevant Article 185 of the Criminal Act concerning a crime. Article 185 (Selection of Penalty)

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

1. The judgment of conviction and the reason for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the Provisional Payment Order

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that it is not the land provided for the passage of the general public because they could pass by opening the iron book at the time, or they could not pass by except for the complainant C.

The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Code is a crime of protecting the legal interests of the general public.

In this context, the term "landway" refers to a wide range of the passage of land that is actually common use for the traffic of the general public, and it does not see the ownership relationship of the site, the traffic relationship, or the passage relationship of the person passing through the road, and the personal records, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Do2112, Nov. 4, 1994; 9Do1651, Jul. 27, 199). Therefore, in the past, if there is a possibility for a large number of unspecified persons to pass temporarily, it cannot be deemed that the nature as "land by a certain number of unspecified persons," which is the object of the interference with general traffic, is lost (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007).