In a case where Party A was indicted for general traffic obstruction on the ground that: (a) the road was a road with a wide range to which the passage of nearby residents, such as farming machinery and water bags, etc. was possible; and (b) the Defendant was indicted for traffic obstruction on the ground that the Defendant obstructed the passage of the road by installing a fence made up of steel with the width to the extent that people walk on the road after he was awarded a successful bid for the land near the road, the case holding that the Defendant guilty on the ground that the Defendant obstructed the traffic flow of Party A, which is the land

The road “A” was a road with a wide range to which the passage of nearby residents, such as farming machinery and water bags, etc., and the Defendant was prosecuted for general traffic obstruction on the ground that the Defendant interfered with the passage of the road by installing a fence made up of steel with a width to the extent that people walk on the road after being awarded a successful bid for the land near the road “A”.

The case holding that Gap corporation's road was a factory vehicle, etc. after the road packing was used for the passage of factory vehicles, etc.; Eul corporation used nearby land as well as factory vehicles, etc.; neighboring land was located above the road which is a slope; neighboring land was located in the vicinity of the road; residents of neighboring land could not move to the road under the direction of the road without passing through the road; although Eul is a ditch in land category to the right side of the road, it is possible to walk up to the degree of walking, but after the road packing, it was no longer used as a passage later than the middle of the road, and therefore Gap's road was used as the only passage of neighboring residents; it constitutes a public land used for the passage of the general public; there is no difference between neighboring residents, and there is no need to regard it as a part of the land to be used by the defendant; and it appears that Gap's land was used as a part of the road's bid price as Gap's bid site.

Article 185 of the Criminal Act

Defendant

Defendant

Nowon-gu et al.

Busan District Court Decision 2017 High Court Decision 518 decided October 25, 2017

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

In the Daegu-gun (Road 1 omitted), the roads above the land (hereinafter referred to as the “road of this case”) are roads used only by the specific persons residing in the three lots of the surrounding land (road 1 or 3 omitted), and there are roads other than the roads of this case (road 4 omitted). Thus, the roads of this case do not constitute land which is a constituent element of general traffic obstruction. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts or in the misapprehension of legal principles, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

In full view of the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to view that the defendant interfered with the traffic of the road of this case, which is the land, by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles. Therefore, the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

① The instant road was a factory package. In order to use it as a passage road for factory vehicles, etc. on or around March 2014, Nonindicted Co., Ltd. used the instant road as well as neighboring three lots of land residents as a factory vehicle after packaging the instant road.

② The three adjacent lots of the instant road are located above the instant road, which is a slope way, and the following is likely to not move to the road under the virtue of the words, without passing through the instant road. On the right side of the instant road, there is a ditch [the ditch, address 4 omitted] on the ground of the land category to the extent that people’s walking is possible. However, since the instant road was packed, it cannot be used as a passage any longer than the middle of its length due to the pentle, it was used as the only passage for the residents of the neighboring three parcels from March 2014 at least as the instant road was used as the only passage of the residents of the neighboring three parcels.

③ Land, which is the constituent element of the crime of interference with general traffic, refers to the wide passage of land that is actually common to the traffic of the general public. It does not prevent ownership relation to the site, traffic relation, or heavy and hostile drinking, etc. As long as the road in this case was used as the only passage of neighboring residents as above, it constitutes land that is actually common to the traffic of the general public. It does not change even if there is no other person using the road in this case except for the residents of the neighboring three parcels (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007, etc.).

④ The tender information on the instant road site ( Address 1 omitted) submitted by the Defendant states that “A part of the lower land is being used as a road,” and the Defendant appears to have sufficiently known that part of the instant road site was being used as a road from the time when the bid was awarded. At the time, the instant road was a road with a width to the extent that it is possible for neighboring residents to pass through agricultural machinery, flood rails, etc..., and the Defendant, even after receiving the bid for the said land, installed a gate built on the instant road with a width to the extent that the said land may pass by the people going on the instant road, so it is reasonable to deem that it interfered with the traffic.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Jin-man (Presiding Judge) Kim Jae-ju