On the ground that residents living near the above road constructed on the land owned by the defendant in the vicinity of the road without the defendant's permission, 200 liters installed nine drums using the excavated machine at the entrance of the above road, and depthed on the mar by means of piling up soil above the above, thereby hindering traffic by preventing the passage of the above road on the surface of the land commonly used for the traffic of the general public.

2. The Defendant asserts that the above road is not a passage to and from the general public for traffic.

The term "land passage" under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of interference with general traffic under the legal interest of the traffic safety of the general public. The term "land passage" actually refers to the road passage to and from the general public, and it does not see ownership relation, traffic right relation, or heavy and red drinking, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). It returned to the case, health zone, E, a witness, a road (hereinafter referred to as "road") leading to F after passing through D, but it was constructed on the road (hereinafter referred to as "road" under the facts charged of this case, ② it was constructed on the road, and ② it was also constructed on the road, ② it was possible to use the road as a witness, ② it was installed on the road, ② it was located on the road, ② it was located on the road, and ② it was stated on the road, ② it was located on the road, and ② it was located on the 3rd.