1. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest of the safety of traffic in the general public is protecting the traffic of the general public. The phrase "land passage" here refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or a large number of traffic users and snow, etc. are not taken (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do18, Apr. 25, 198; 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007). The court below found that the part of the road of this case is connected to the land owned by the defendant or the defendant as part of the land owned by the defendant or the defendant and it was used as a passage through their house, and therefore, the part of this case is not proven to be a place of crime in public nature where many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses freely pass.

3. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept in light of the following circumstances.

According to the records, the part of the road of this case is a road that is usable for traffic of motor vehicles and horses, such as transportation of goods or transportation of farming, as well as the passage of motor vehicles and horses, for a short period of two meters wide. While two households of the complainant and J actually use the part of the road of this case, it can be seen that the general public can have access to the house of the complainant and J or its neighboring dry field or forest.

Therefore, the part of the road of this case shall be deemed to fall under the "land passage" as a land passage to and from the general public, and the act of interference with traffic by clearing it as dry field constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic.

4. Nevertheless, the court below constituted a general traffic obstruction by the defendant.