일반교통방해
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal as follows: E, G’s concern, and new roads from around 201 to around 201 enter and depart from the instant access road located in Ha (hereinafter “the instant land”); thus, the instant access road falls under “land” as prescribed by Article 185 of the Criminal Act; and the Defendant was punished as a matter of passage to the instant access road from around August 201 to around August 201, as the access road was closed by means of a cutback machine to hedge the instant access road, and thus, there was a criminal intent as to closing the access road used by many unspecified persons to the Defendant at the time.
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.
2. Determination
A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of interference with general traffic under the legal interest protected by the law of the safety of traffic of the general public, which make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means. Here, the term “land” refers to a wide range of the land passage in common use for the traffic of the general public, and it does not include ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or traffic congestion.
B. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the trial court, in order for E to collect earth and rocks around 2001, the access road of this case was established with the permission of F, the owner of the land of this case, and since the opening of the access road of this case, the access road of this case was used as the passage of G, and the resident of the house of this case. However, around August 201, the road connecting the land of this case and the house of this case was lost due to the omission of the report, and the restoration project was not carried out.