일반교통방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. In the facts of this case, misunderstanding of the legal principles and misconception of the facts of this case, the road where the defendant parked the vehicle and interfered with the passage of the vehicle (hereinafter “road of this case”) is the reason of the defendant.
The road of this case was originally a general land, but it was constructed as a road for the fenceyang-gun C project, and it was found that the said C project was illegal, thereby losing the function of the road.
Therefore, the road in this case does not constitute “land” as referred to in general traffic obstruction, and the defendant did not have the intention to obstruct general traffic.
B. The road of this case was used as the passage of illegal C business without permission even though it was owned by the defendant, and even after the Supreme Court decision that C business was illegal, the defendant placed the vehicle on the road of this case as part of the exercise of ownership because illegal buildings, etc. are not removed.
Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against social norms.
2. Determination
A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish any act of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which infringes on the safety of the general public traffic by causing damage to or influoring the road, etc., or significantly obstructing traffic by other means. Here, the term “land access” refers to a widely known passage through land actually common use for the traffic of the general public, and neither the ownership relation of the site, traffic relation, nor the right relation of passage, nor the traffic congestion of the person, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7717, Dec. 28, 2007). The lower court is a common land for the traffic of tourists or vehicles related to construction, and therefore, the term “road access” refers to a road that interferes with general traffic under the Administrative Services Act, regardless of whether it is legitimate or not.