The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) is that the Defendant’s storage of plastic water, rubber, fertilizer distribution, etc. is not a “road commonly used for the traffic of the general public or a “land” as provided in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, but the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty is erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. Determination:

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to, or interference with traffic by causing damage to, the land access, etc. or significantly difficult to pass through by causing interference with traffic by other means. Here, the term "land access" refers to a wide range of the passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public. It does not include ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or heavy and sound, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007; 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002).

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, the following facts are as follows: ① the part of the Defendant's storage of plastic water, rubber, fertilizer spons, etc. is part of D (hereinafter "D") and J land in the official city, ② K completed the house on D land around February 2008 (hereinafter "the instant house"), which was a co-owner at the time of its new construction to use I land for permanent entry into and exit from the land; ③ K packages packages packaging the I land (hereinafter "the instant road") and passed the construction of the instant house through the packaging of the land and the construction of the instant land (hereinafter "the instant road"); ④ The Defendant was along the passage of the instant road around November 201.