The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-misunderstanding or misapprehension of legal principles, the farm road of this case is not a public place for the traffic of the general public, and the defendant's act of piling up soil and stones on the farm road alone interferes with traffic or interfered with the felling of the victim D.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the defendant did not have intention to obstruct general traffic and business at the time.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the misapprehension of the legal principle or mistake of facts

A. With respect to general traffic obstruction, “land” refers to a place public for the traffic safety of the general public, i.e., a place with a public nature where many and unspecified people or horses freely pass through without any specific person, and as long as land is recognized as land, the ownership of the site, traffic relation, or traffic relation, or heavy and timely traffic congestion are not ensured (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1697, Aug. 19, 2005, etc.). Meanwhile, the purpose of interfering with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish the acts of causing damage to or infusing the land, etc., or significantly obstructing traffic by other means, and to prevent any interference with the traffic safety of the general public or to make it considerably difficult for the public to pass through the surrounding land under the evidence of the court below (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1697, Apr. 15, 195).