Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On May 8, 2010, the Defendant interfered with traffic by preventing the flow of dry field D and dry field 30gs from passing through, from passing through, even if, at the point where the farming road ends, E, who was a farmer, from using a farming road at the point where the farming road ends.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each prosecutor's protocol of examination of part of the accused against the accused (including the substitute part);

1. Each prosecutor's statement concerning F and E;

1. A protocol of partial police interrogation of the accused;

1. Each police statement of the E, G, H, and I;

1. Each investigation report (a photograph attached, a photo attached, a Justice K and telephone call), an investigation report (a confirmation of the year of photographing the NAV airline and the results of on-site verification);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to photographs, and entire registered matters;

1. Article 185 of the Criminal Act and Article 185 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the claim of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order is true, but it is not possible or significantly difficult to pass through the farm. Thus, the following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, the following circumstances acknowledged by the defendant's judgment, such as where E remains no longer a farming house after planting the cryp trees recorded in the decision of this case, and there are no special reasons for not cultivating the field where E continued farming house, and since the defendant tried to pass through the farm of this case using the cryp trees recorded in the decision of this case after planting the cryp trees, it appears that the defendant made a new passage other than the farming house of this case, due to the defendant's act.