A. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the passage of the land in this case constitutes “land” under the general traffic obstruction, and according to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the facts charged in this case can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below not guilty on the ground that the above passage route does not constitute the land of interference with general traffic, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the instant facts charged constituted a case where there was no proof of crime, comprehensively taking account of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court.

[Basic legal principles] The purpose of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that cause damage to or influence of land, etc., or interfere with traffic by other means, and thus make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by means of causing damage to or influences to the public. Here, “land access” refers to “place of public traffic by general public, i.e., a place of public nature where many and unspecified people or people are allowed to freely pass through without limited access to a specific person” (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1376, Feb. 25, 2010, etc.). [Attachment of recognized facts and circumstances] [Defendant] The fact that the Defendant installed a pent on land is also recognized.

However, at the time of July 18, 2013 where the Defendant installed a pen on D’s land, the “D land” refers to a place where “the owner of F’s land” and “the specific person who sckes him/her,” used as a passage. Therefore, it is difficult to view the said land as a place of public nature with which an unspecified number of people or a vehicle can freely pass.