A. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to view the instant land as a place of public nature.

B. The prosecutor appealed against the judgment of the court below, and the appellate court prior to the return of the case accepted the prosecutor’s appeal and reversed the judgment below and sentenced the defendant to a fine of KRW 30,000.

(c)

The Defendant appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance before remand, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court before remand and remanded the case to this court.

2. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the premise of factual misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal principles, even though the land of this case is the land used by many unspecified persons for the passage of the vehicle.

3. Summary and judgment of the facts charged

A. The summary of the facts charged reveals that the Defendant interfered with traffic by setting up about six chemical cancers on the ground of the land in the Hasan-si (hereinafter “instant land”) located in the Hasan-si (hereinafter “Hasan-si”), from June 2014 to October 2014, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to pass through the vehicle.

B. In full view of the circumstances stated in its reasoning, the lower court rendered a judgment that acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to view the instant land as a place of public nature in which many unspecified vehicles freely pass, and that there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(c)

The judgment of this court 1) The crime of interference with general traffic safety under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the protection of the general public’s traffic safety is a legal interest. The term “landway” refers to a place of public traffic by the general public, i.e., a place of public nature with which an unspecified number of people or a horse can freely pass through without any specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Do401, Apr. 27, 1999; 2005Do7573, Oct. 11, 2007; 2009Do1376, Feb. 25, 2010).