A. The access road of this case was permanently leased by the Defendant, and then packaged the road at the expense of the Defendant and used only the Defendant as a house owned by the Defendant. As such, the access road is not a land commonly used for the traffic of the general public.

B. The defendant's act of traffic cannot be deemed to have impeded because the victim's factory site was replaced by a substitute way for entering the factory site.

(c) Notwithstanding the installation of a boom boomer, it does not constitute traffic obstruction, as it did not impede the passage of light or ordinary vehicles, and only large vehicles for construction works of victims could not pass.

2. The Defendant asserted the same as the grounds for appeal in this part of the judgment below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail in the column of “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel’s assertion”.

In full view of the circumstances admitted by the lower court and the following circumstances recognized by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s determination is just and acceptable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to mistake of facts or obstruction of general traffic, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant

The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to or infusing land, etc. or significantly obstructing traffic by causing damage to or infusing land, etc. as a crime under the legal interest protected by the law of the public traffic safety. The term "land passage" refers to a place of public passage to and from the general public, i.e., a passage on land with a public character where many and unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses are allowed to freely pass through, and the ownership of the land, the right of passage, or the passage of the person.