Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, on the ground that the instant road does not constitute “landway.”

2. Determination

A. Article 185 of the Criminal Act provides, “A person who damages, destroys, or destroys a road, waterway, or bridge, or obstructs traffic by any other means, shall be punished by imprisonment for not more than 10 years or by a fine not exceeding 15 million won.”

Here, “land” refers to a place provided to the general public for traffic, i.e., a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons, motor vehicles, and horses can freely pass (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1376, Feb. 25, 2010). Even in cases where a person using a road is small, it may be deemed land as prescribed in the said provision. However, a road that passes through with the temporary approval of use from the landowner in a state where another road has access to a public road, or is an incidental place where the landowner uses it for personal use, does not constitute land as defined in the said provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do12563, Apr. 7, 2017).

B. The court below, based on the above legal principles, states the facts and circumstances as stated in its reasoning, and viewed the road of this case as a road where the landowner personally uses the road of this case, and it is an incidental place to another person’s passage. The evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone is a place of public nature where many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses can freely pass.