Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case on the ground that the road of this case does not constitute the land-based.

2. Determination

A. From February 5, 2018 to Jun. 1, 2018, the Defendant: (a) laid on the road owned by the Defendant, approximately 100 meters in length, and approximately 1.5 meters in width, on the ground that “the trees of an individual private land are damaged”; (b) laid up a road at the edge of a road to prevent a large amount of vehicles for solar construction in the victim’s house from entering into the road; (c) cut down the road; (d) strike the edge of the road; and (d) cut off the road; and (e) put the chair attached by inserting the letter “Ip. coming into the dry field”; and (e) “Ip. Maz.” and “Ip. Do not enter the private land”; and (e) put the chair attached by leaving the road at the entrance of the general public, a place for public traffic.

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with traffic.

B. Specific determination 1) In the context of general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, “land” refers to a place provided to the general public for traffic traffic, that is, a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or motor vehicles and horses are able to freely pass through without limit to a specific person. A road which has access to a public road and is merely a place with temporary approval from the land owner or an ancillary use by the landowner for personal use by the landowner does not constitute land stipulated in the said provision (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Do12563, Apr. 7, 2017).