A. Defendant 1) The passage of this case, which is in front of the collection of a mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, is merely an individual passage within the Defendant’s private land, and is not a contribution by an unspecified majority. Thus, it does not constitute “land” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act. 2) The sentence of the lower court on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence is too unfilled and unfair.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, the purpose of the relevant legal doctrine is to punish all acts of causing damage to or influence of land, etc., or significantly obstructing traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Here, “land” refers to a place of public traffic by the general public, i.e., a place of public nature where many and unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses are allowed to freely pass through, without limited to a specific person, and a place of public nature where a large number of unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses are not allowed to freely pass through, the ownership of the land, traffic rights, or traffic congestion by the public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do18, Apr. 25, 198; 2015Do1475, Sept. 28, 2016).

(1) The Defendant is the Go Chang-gun, one of his wife-nam, who was a 802 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “land”) before I in the Go Chang-gun, North Korea, the Republic of Korea, and the relevant lot number are specified only in W and the relevant lot number).