A. The roads indicated in the facts of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (hereinafter “road of this case”) used for the purpose of diversing to the land owned by the Defendant and E in a non-defluent state with the width of less than 2 meters before the victim arbitrarily snowed concrete. After the victim installed concrete, only the victim used it for the construction of the new building, so it is not a place provided for public traffic. In addition, there are other roads, other than the road of this case, which are able to enter the forest owned by the victim from the public road of this case.

Therefore, the road of this case does not fall under the “land” stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by interfering with traffic by destroying the road, etc., or blocking the traffic by obstructing the general traffic safety.

Here, the term "landway" refers to a place provided to the general public for traffic, that is, a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or persons are allowed to freely pass through without any specific person.

Even in cases where a person using a road is small, it may constitute land stipulated in the above provision, but a road that passes through with the temporary use from the land owner with the consent of the land owner, or is merely a place where the land owner personally uses another person's passage while using it, does not constitute land stipulated in the above provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do12563, Apr. 7, 2017). 2) In light of the above legal principle, the court below, and the trial court are legitimate.