일반교통방해
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
Defendants are not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the Defendants is publicly announced.
1. The summary of the grounds of appeal is that the passage through which the Defendants installed the 쇠s is only a way used by the specific persons and does not constitute a “land access” used for the general public’s traffic, and thus, it does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic. However, the judgment below convicting the Defendants of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles and misapprehension of legal principles.
2. The summary of the facts charged is that D is the president of F clan, the owner of forest land E (hereinafter referred to as “the specific area only once”) of F clan, Defendant A was a general manager of the above clan, Defendant B was a person working from the above clan to the general manager since 2011, and part of the above forest land was used as land after a passage passage through G, H and I forest land.
In collusion with D, the Defendants opened a clan meeting on March 201 and resolved not to use it for the said three parcels of forest land from the above passage route to install a hacks, which was installed at the entrance of the said three parcels of forest land, and then installed a sign of suspending use and a hacks so as to prevent motor vehicles from passing through the land.
3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal
A. The purpose of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish any act of causing damage to or infusing land, etc. or significantly obstructing traffic by other means, which is a crime that legally protects the public traffic safety. Here, the term “land access” refers to a place of public access to the general public, namely, a place of public access with a public nature in which many and unspecified persons or horses are allowed to freely pass through without limited to a specific person (Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1376 Decided October 25, 2010). (b) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, G, H and I land connected to the above passage.