In full view of the victim's statements, it is reasonable to view that the passage route of this case, which the defendant installed and cut off the wire-conditioning network, etc., is a road where many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass.

Nevertheless, there is an error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles in the court below's decision that the above passage way does not correspond to the land of general traffic obstruction.

Judgment

A. The lower court determined that the Defendant was not guilty of the charges of this case on the following grounds: (a) the passage of this case was ① a part of the existing passage roads between the Defendant’s house and the Defendant’s house was the road newly opened at his own expense for the purpose of using them as access to his house; (b) a house in fact connected with the passage of this case is the only house of D; (c) a house is located at a place other than the end of the passage of this case; and (d) even according to D’s testimony, it cannot be seen as a subsequent mountain village through D’s house; and (b) the location where the Defendant installed a steel network with a decline pipe was located near the entrance of the house of this case and the passage of this case; (c) the passage of this case appears to be a person other than those who intend to enter the house of this case, other than those who intend to enter the house of this case, on the ground that there was no evidence of free passage or use of the house of this case as a place for use by many and unspecified persons.

B. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense, the legal interest of which is the protection of the general public’s traffic safety. The term “land access” refers to the place where the general public is used for traffic traffic.