A. Although it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s husband, as the Defendant’s husband, only used as C’s private road after packaging a concrete package for access to D’s large 664 square meters and a house on the ground, and constitutes “land” for the traffic of the general public, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Even if the land of this case constitutes “land”, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment, which found the Defendant guilty of the charges of this case, even though it is merely C and it was not the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of this case’s general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to, causing damage to, or interference with traffic by other means, such as land, etc., which are protected by the legal interest of the general public, and thus making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing interference with traffic. The term “land” here refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public. It does not go through the ownership of the land, traffic relation, or traffic relation, or traffic right, or hostile, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007). In other words, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the land of this case is used as part of the road from the above D site to the meritorious road, to the degree of 4m width from the road to the public, and ② the concrete packaging site is to reach the above concrete packaging site.