A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. In fact, misunderstanding the legal principles, even if the reporter of this case does not pass through the land owned by the Defendant, the reporter of this case merely used the land owned by the Defendant for the purpose of prompt passage, even though it is not necessary to use the land owned by the Defendant, since it does not constitute “land” as defined in general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and legal principles, the purpose of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that cause damage to land routes, etc. or obstruct traffic by causing damage to or influoring the general public’s legal interests, and thus make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 2008Do10560, Jan. 30, 2009). Here, the term “land” refers to the wide range of the land passage of the general public’s land, which is actually common use at the passage of the general public, and part of the land owned by the Defendant and the visitors is not limited to the land ownership of 200Do188, Apr. 25, 198; 194Do375, Feb. 26, 2007).