A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, 1) The instant road which interferes with general traffic is not a private road established for the obstruction of general traffic, and even though it is somewhat inconvenient, people could have sufficiently passed, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misunderstanding of facts.

2) Intrusion upon the victim’s residence since the place where the Defendant entered the residence did not have a fence, and is the place owned by the Defendant.

Although it cannot be seen, the court below found the defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, the court below erred by misunderstanding the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Fact-finding, etc. (1) The purpose of this case is to punish all acts of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act with the purpose of protecting the traffic safety of the general public, such as causing damage to or infusing a road, etc., or hindering traffic by other means. Here, the term “land” refers to the wide passage of land actually being used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic relation, or traffic relation or traffic relation, or heavy and redness, etc. are not prohibited (see Supreme Court Decisions 201Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007; 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007). The court below and the first instance court have duly adopted and investigated the evidence of the first instance court and the first instance court, and the following circumstances, i.e., the new road that had been used by the neighboring families of the road. D.