A. Even if the Defendant installed a excavated machine on the road of this case with respect to general traffic obstruction, it does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic, since it did not interfere with the use of the road as a farming road, such as the existing use status.

B. As to interference with the business, there was no problem in using the instant road as the existing usage status, and the Defendant was able to contribute to using other roads, not the instant road, thereby obstructing the victim’s new construction work.

shall not be deemed to exist.

2. Determination

A. As to general traffic obstruction, a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense that protects the traffic safety of the general public, with the aim of punishing all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by interfering with traffic by means of damaging land, road, etc., or blocking with obstacles.

The term "land access" in general traffic obstruction refers to a place of public character in which many and unspecified persons and horses can freely pass through without limiting to a specific person, and it does not include ownership of the site, relation to the right and the right of passage, or hostile, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). In addition, even if a road is constructed as a farm for passage of a train, a fish farm, etc. for farming purposes, even if it is actually opened as a road for passage of a farm, it is not possible to pass through only a horse, a fish farm, etc., but it is possible to pass through another vehicle, so if such passage of a vehicle is obstructed, it constitutes a interference with general traffic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002).