All the costs of the original judgment and the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

A. In light of the legal principle, the place where the Defendant stops the instant vehicle is located at the entrance of an apartment complex and can only pass by the apartment residents, and thus, it does not constitute “land passage” of general traffic obstruction since it cannot be said that many and unspecified persons can freely pass.

B. In fact-finding, the Defendant operated the instant vehicle and operated the instant vehicle into an apartment complex, and operated a vehicle in order to avoid the vehicle from the start of the vehicle in the apartment complex, and thereafter, left the vehicle at the entrance of the vehicle in an urgent manner because he did not walk again. Therefore, the Defendant did not have any intention to interfere with general traffic.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which is protected by the law as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, refers to a place where the traffic safety of the general public is protected, and “land” refers to a place where the general public enters and departs, i.e., a place where an unspecified number of people or vehicles and horses are able to freely pass through without any specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Do14589, Jan. 27, 2011). The place where the Defendant was installed is a place where a large number of unspecified people, including the above apartment residents, can freely pass through, since it constitutes a place where the general traffic obstruction is located at the entrance of

Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is rejected on a different premise.

B. The following circumstances, which can be known by the records and pleadings of the instant case regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, namely, ① the Defendant parked his/her vehicle by crossing it with the direction of entering and leaving the apartment complex at the one at the right entrance of the apartment complex. In light of the parking location and form, etc., it is difficult to view that the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, was the wind that the vehicle was moving behind, while driving the vehicle, as argued by the Defendant.