On March 16, 2012, the Defendant had installed a steel network on the non- packing roads as indicated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment. However, except D and E, a village residents, who are outside the market at the time, did not use the above roads for passage, and the above roads do not constitute land (the above roads are limited to the extent of 1.5m wide, but D, the complainants, extended the mountain roads of this case without permission around 2000). The Defendant left a space of 1.5m high to prevent any hindrance to the use of the above roads by village residents, and thus, they do not interfere with traffic.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that deemed that the defendant interfered with the traffic of the passage through the farm machinery and vehicles by village residents is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest of the safety of traffic in the general public is protecting the safety of traffic in the general public. The term "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land used for the traffic in the general public. It does not go through the ownership of the site, the relationship of traffic rights, or the large and hostileness of traffic users (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002).

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the above road was used as a passage from 1971 to 1985; and (ii) the above road was formed with a width of about 3 meters as of the present from around 1985; (iii) the above road is in fact connected to other roads; and (iv) it appears that there is a dry field and landscaped farm for community residents in addition to the above complainants, it is necessary to enter and depart from vehicles, farming machinery, and villagers; and (iii) the space with 1.5m space left on the access road by the defendant alone is not enough to pass the above road and it appears not to be easy to pass through the agricultural machinery, etc.