A. (1) In relation to the mistake of facts, the instant ditch site is a place where only the original residents’ passage through the road was possible, and the passage of motor vehicles was not obstructed due to the Defendant’s restoration to its original state.

(2) In relation to the point of interference with business, since the victim's act is an unlawful act to make a ditch into a road, it does not constitute a duty worth protecting under the Criminal Act.

B. The lower court’s sentence (three million won of fine) imposed on the Defendant is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of which the benefit and protection of the general traffic safety of the general public is the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act. Here, “land” refers to a place of public traffic by the general public, namely, a place of public nature where many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass through without limiting to a specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do401, Apr. 27, 199). The ownership of the site, the right of traffic, or the right of traffic,

(See Supreme Court Decision 94Do2112 delivered on November 4, 1994, etc.). Based on the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below as a whole based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① the place of this case appears to have been used for the passage of the general public since 10 years, ② the defendant leased the site for the ditch of this case from 2004 to 3 years under the condition that “it is impossible to restrict the passage of the neighboring residents (vehicles, etc.),” and the defendant used the ditch of this case under the condition that “it is difficult to restrict the passage of the neighboring residents (vehicles, etc.).” The defendant appears to have been aware of the fact that the passage of the vehicle would be possible through the ditch of this case, and ③ the defendant might not be a problem that the passage of the sidewalk of this case after its restoration.