Therefore, the Defendant appealed on the ground of a misapprehension of legal principles, and the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the charges of interference with general traffic is reversed, and the judgment of the court below was rendered not guilty, on the ground that the road stated in the facts charged in the instant case does not constitute “land” under Article

Therefore, the prosecutor appealed on the grounds of misapprehending the legal principles, and the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the party before remanding and remanded it to the trial court.

2. The roads stated in facts constituting the crime as stated in the judgment below does not constitute “land” as provided in Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

The defendant's act does not constitute a general traffic obstruction since he did not obstruct the passage of people or motor vehicles, although he installed a gate on the above road.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on general traffic obstruction, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Determination

(a) For obstruction of general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, the purpose of this Act is to punish all acts making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass through by causing damage to or infusing land, road, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means, as an offense, the protection of which is the benefit and protection of the law for the safety of public traffic;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). The term “land” refers to a place of public access to the general public, i.e., a place of public character where many and unspecified persons or motor vehicles and horses are able to freely pass through, without limiting to a specific person, and a place of public character where such persons or motor vehicles and horses are able to pass through, the ownership relation of the site, the traffic right relation,

Supreme Court Decision 88Do18 delivered on April 25, 198, is decided by the Supreme Court.