logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 속초지원 2014.04.16 2014고정18
도로교통법위반
Text

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

Reasons

1. On September 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) around September 6, 2013, up to KRW 1.5m in length, approximately 60cm in height, and approximately 1ttm in weight, using a locker on the roads in front of C in Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun; and (b) laid away things on the roads that could interfere with traffic without permission.

2. The roads indicated in the facts charged in this case’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion (hereinafter “instant roads”) do not constitute roads under the Road Act, which are private roads opened by the Defendant.

In addition, the defendant continued to restrict the traffic of large vehicles on the above road, and the stones stated in the above facts charged (hereinafter “the stones of this case”) are left by the defendant on the edge of the above road to restrict the traffic of large vehicles, so the above stones do not constitute articles that could obstruct the traffic.

3. First of all, according to the records of this case, although the road of this case was constructed by the defendant and part of the road of this case was owned by the defendant, it is recognized that the road of this case was provided for the passage of village residents' roads and general vehicles. According to the above facts, the road of this case constitutes the road of this case according to the "other areas which are open to the public so that many and unspecified persons, motor vehicles and horses can pass safely and smoothly" as provided in Article 2 subparagraph 1 (d) of the Road Traffic Act, so this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

(3) In light of the above legal principles and records, the following facts are acknowledged: (a) the road category of the instant road was changed from April 1, 2003 to “road”; and (b) whether the instant road may interfere with the traffic of the road; (c) whether the instant road may interfere with the traffic of the road; and (d) the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the instant road was placed on the instant road that falls under the road under the road under the Road Traffic Act, but the part constituting the instant road is a forest road around 191.

arrow