In addition, the Speaker-si notified the defendant that he may use and benefit from the land of this case when he refused the defendant's request for purchase of the land of this case. The defendant obstructed the road of this case in order to use and benefit from the land of this case according to the above notification of the Speaker-si. Therefore, the traffic obstruction is not

2. The land as stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to the land passage to and from the general public, actually refers to the land passage to and from the general public, and the ownership relationship of the site and the traffic relationship are not not neglected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Do2112, Nov. 4, 1994).

Even if the road is used for the traffic of the general public, it is the land which is the object of the obstruction of general traffic.

Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below and the court below, ① the road of this case where the size of the 5.6m, 4m, and 1984m, was located in an area where the housing was concentrated, and ② the Defendant purchased the land of this case on or around September 29, 2008, and received KRW 885,190, and filed a claim for purchase of the road of this case against the king around August 201. ③ on or around September 7, 2011, on the ground that the land of this case was planned to be developed as a prearranged housing redevelopment zone, the owner of the land of this case, who requested purchase, may obtain a notice of the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land Planning and Utilization from the Defendant to permit the development activities under Article 47(7) of the National Land Planning and Utilization Act (hereinafter “the Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport”).