일반교통방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal (legal scenarios assertion) is as follows: (a) Defendant was placed in the front road of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu (hereinafter “instant road”); (b) Defendant failed to comply with the demand of D to remove the said goods; (c) the vehicle driven by D could not pass the instant road without placing the said goods; and (d) the police officer who reported to the police and dispatched to the scene was able to pass the instant road only by placing the said goods; and (c) in light of the facts charged in the instant case, the passage of the instant road became impossible or remarkably difficult due to the Defendant’s act, such as the facts charged in the instant case, and on a different premise, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the elements of a crime of interference with general traffic.
2. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass through by causing damage to or infusing land, road, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means, which are crimes of which general public traffic safety is protected by law.
(See Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995, 2008Do10560 delivered on January 30, 2009, etc.). According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, ① the road of this case is part of the roads leading to the direction of Cheongju and Masan, from the house where D's mother resides, ② the road of this case was visited to the house where D's mother resides, and ② the road of this case was driven by driving the vehicle on the day of this case, but it was difficult for the defendant to walk the road of this case while driving the vehicle on the day. ③ D requested that D put the above goods to the defendant, but the defendant did not respond to this.