The Defendant and A conspired in collusion at the above time, at the above time, and at the above place, the wall stone, etc., which is the remainder of the columns destroyed by A, was laid on the road of the H of the Posi-si Pool population, which is the access road to the above D-do village, thereby hindering traffic.

2. The change of the defendant and his defense counsel cannot be seen as being provided for the passage of the general public at the place where the wall, etc., which is the remainder of the pole destroyed by the defendant and his defense counsel, is left. It is not the land in the obstruction of general traffic.

3. The term "land-based interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act" refers to a place of public use for the traffic safety of the general public, i.e., a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons, motor vehicles, and horses are allowed to freely pass through, without limited to a specific person;

(1) In light of the aforementioned legal principles as seen earlier, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record, it is difficult to readily conclude that the location where the Defendant laid the gate, which is the remainder of the pole destroyed and damaged, is a road with a public nature for many and unspecified persons as determined by the general traffic obstruction.

I would like to say.

(1) The place where the defendant laid a brick, etc. is used as part of the land of the He/she was registered in the name of He/she, and is used as the access road to the D Electric Village sold through the housing site project by E, while the above access road is the only access road leading to D Electric Village, and is prohibited from moving to another place than the above electric source village through the above access road.

② The above access road was used only by approximately 20 households residing in the above electric village, and only by the residents of the above electric village.