A. The instant road of mistake of facts does not constitute “landway” as referred to in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and the Defendant did not lock the hacks connected with hacks with them with locks. Since the land category was not planted on the part where the road is a road, there was no interference with traffic.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to or infusing the land, etc. or significantly obstructing traffic by causing damage to or infusing the land, etc., or by other means, as a crime that is protected by the legal interest of the general public in regard to the assertion of mistake of facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 2008Do10560, Jan. 30, 2009). Here, the term “land” refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public, and thus, the term “land passage” in this context refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public. As such, it does not contribute to the ownership relation of the land, the right to traffic, or the heavy and timely drinking of traffic users.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651 delivered on July 27, 199). In addition, in a case where a significant narrow breadth makes it possible to pass only a vehicle with a certain size below a certain size and it became impossible to pass the vehicle originally possible to pass, such an act constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in particular, the police interrogation protocol against the defendant, the police protocol against C, and each field photograph, etc., the road of this case constitutes a passage on land that is commonly used for the traffic of the general public. Nevertheless, as stated in the judgment of the court below, the defendant was locked with the hacker pole, connected with the hacks of the road of this case, thereby locking the locks, and obstructed the transportation of the hacks by planting.