The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. The passage of 3.7m and 50m in length (hereinafter “instant land”) in front of the Defendant’s house located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Nam-gu (hereinafter “Seoul-gu”) is a private ground of the Defendant and the Defendant’s wife K. Since the Defendant’s personal use of the said land and the Defendant impliedly used another’s passage, it does not constitute “land” as referred to in general traffic obstruction.

B. Even if the instant land falls under land access, the Defendant was given answers from public officials in charge to the effect that it is good to install gates and installed gates in trust, and thus, the illegality is dismissed as it constitutes a mistake in law.

2. Determination

A. The Defendant also asserted the same purport in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion that the instant land does not constitute “land”. However, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, and rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons in Article 1 of the “reason of guilt”.

The circumstances cited by the court below are as follows: ① all citizens’ property rights are guaranteed, but the exercise of property rights is appropriate for public welfare (Article 23(1) and (2) of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea); ② The “land access from interference with general traffic” does not lead to the ownership of the site, the traffic relationship, or the passage relationship, or a large and hostile manner of the traffic manager (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2112, Nov. 4, 1994, etc.). At least 1982, many neighboring residents have used the land as the passage of the land; ③ The network, the former owner of the land of this case, was not dissatisfied with the passage of the land of this case, and ④ The residents have passed the land of this case.