일반교통방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute land of interference with general traffic as the roads used only by E and their families, and the Defendant’s act is in accordance with the restoration order issued by Pyeongtaek-gun, and there was no intention to interfere with general traffic. Even if intentional act is acknowledged, it did not constitute a justifiable act, and thus, there was no possibility of expectation because it did not constitute a legitimate act, nor did it be refused by an administrative
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.
2. Determination
A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is the crime of interference with general traffic safety of the general public. The term "landway" refers to a place of public passage through the general public, namely, a place with public character where many and unspecified people, or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass through without limit to a specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1697, Aug. 19, 2005). The ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or heavy and redness of traffic, etc. are not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). According to the records, the road of this case appears to be a road of this case to be a road of this case where many people, vehicles, and horses are allowed to freely pass through the road of this case, including its own form, leading to packaging, etc., and to the extent that they are allowed to freely pass through the road of this case."