Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous in misconception of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.

2. Determination

A. On December 10, 2010, the Defendant: (a) installed the instant road on the ground of the said land, which was installed on the ground that part of the instant facts charged was owned by the Defendant, on the ground that part of the front land C was owned by the Defendant; (b) around December 10, 2010, the Defendant interfered with the traffic of the land along which the general public and vehicles pass by installing fences of the width of 2.5m, height of 2m, and total area of 65m square meters.

B. As to the judgment of the court below, the "land access" under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a place of public traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, i.e., a place of public character in which many and unspecified persons, motor vehicles, and horses are allowed to freely pass through without limiting it to a specific person. Since August 2008, a person driving on the road of this case after the road of this case did not exist except for E and her husband, the complainant of this case is not a place of public character in which many and unspecified persons can freely pass. Thus, the court below acquitted the defendant on the ground that the road of this case cannot be an object of the general traffic obstruction under Article 18

C. We closely examine the above findings and judgments of the court below by comparing them with records, and even if the road of this case was passed by residents in the past, from around 2004.