The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case from around 06:00 on June 8, 2017 to Defendant A

6. From 18:00 up to 15.18:00, in a way that the width of the vehicle located in front of the Chungcheongnam-gun, Jincheon-gun, is set up on a road with a volume of approximately two meters and does not cut off the vehicle on one’s own, allowing the vehicle to pass through the above land, which is a site for public traffic of the general public.

Accordingly, Defendant A interfered with traffic on the land through which general vehicles pass.

2. Determination

A. The instant land, including the instant road, by the Defendant and his defense counsel, does not constitute “land” as referred to in the traffic obstruction, since it is owned by the Defendant and is not a place provided by the general public for traffic traffic, and thus, the Defendant’s act does not constitute a traffic obstruction.

B. The purpose of interfering with general traffic safety under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to land, etc. or interference with traffic by means of blocking by obstacles, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Here, the term “land” refers to a place provided for the traffic of the general public, i.e., a place with a public nature in which many and unspecified persons or horses are able to freely pass by without any specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2617, Sept. 11, 1984; 2002Do7292, Feb. 28, 2003). Even in cases where a person using a road is small, it may constitute land as stipulated in the above provision, but it does not constitute an incidental use of land by a person who has access to a road with no permission from another person, 26.7.