Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

From December 2015 to January 2018, in a way that the Defendant’s mother owned the Defendant’s mother, he stored up to 5m of the length located in Dong, E, and up to 3m of the width of the earth, or left up the light straw, rice straw, straw straw straw (50km, small straw straw straw straw, etc.) on several occasions, led the Defendant’s mother’s mother to the front straw straw, which is a site for the general public’s traffic.

As such, the Defendant interfered with traffic.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. Cadastral map, obstruction photograph;

1. A report on investigation (related to the actual inspection of the scene of the case);

1. A criminal investigation report (Submission of documents related to the case);

1. An investigation report (a written statement submitted by neighboring residents G);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports (related to the statements of residents using the suspect's farm roads);

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act applicable to the facts constituting an offense, Article 185 of the Criminal Act selective punishment, and the choice of fines;

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

1. In light of the fact that the reason for sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the Aggravated Punishment of Provisional Payment Order is not short of the entire period of the crime of this case and that it seems that considerable inconvenience was caused to the use of the land as indicated in the judgment, it is necessary to strictly punish the defendant.

Although the defendant is a different type of crime, there is a good attitude to comply with the overall law due to the fact that he has been punished more than 10 times due to the violation of road traffic law (driving without a license), the violation of road traffic law (driving without a license), larceny, and the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act.

It does not seem that it does not appear.

However, there is no clear perception as to the fact that the defendant reflects the crime of this case, that the defendant interfered with general traffic within the whole period of crime, that the defendant interfered with the use of the land in the case of the general public, and that there is no clear awareness as to whether the crime of this case constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic.