A. The meaning of “land” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act

(b) The case holding that it constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic, if he/she has installed a wall with several spaces left only on the ground that he/she owns it remarkably difficult for residents to pass through the wall;

A. The term "landway" as stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Code refers to the land passage to and from the general public, which actually refers to the land passage to and from the general public, and it does not include the ownership relationship of the site, traffic rights relationship, or a large number of traffic users and the red, etc.

(b) The case holding that it constitutes a general traffic obstruction if a ductal road of 2 meters in width, which has been used only for a long time as the sole passage leading to the citizens' contributions, has been left 50 to 75 cm wide, and a fence has been installed, and the passage of residents has become considerably difficult, on the ground that it is one’s own ownership.

Article 185 of the Criminal Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Do18 decided Apr. 25, 198 (Gong1988,929) 88Do264 decided Jun. 27, 1989 (Gong1989,1192) 91Do2550 decided Dec. 10, 1991 (Gong192,559)

Defendant

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 94No170 delivered on June 3, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the Defendant’s grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized the following facts: (a) the instant alley road of 2 meters in width, which existed between the Defendant-owned land in Gwangju-si and the house of the non-indicted 20 meters adjacent thereto, was used for a long time as the instant alley road was used solely for the road through which the residents, such as the above bridge line and the heart house, contributed to the road; and (b) the Defendant reconstructed the building on the above site and constructed a fence with a large amount of 50 to 75cm wide and left the site on the ground that the building site was owned by the Defendant, and made it considerably difficult for the residents of neighboring seven generations, such as the above bridge line, etc.; and (c) examining the evidence adopted by the court of first instance maintained by the court below in comparison with

Article 185 of the Criminal Code refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public. Since the ownership relationship of the site, traffic rights relationship, or many persons passing through the road are not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do2550, Dec. 10, 1991; Supreme Court Decision 88Do18, Apr. 25, 198; 88Do18, Apr. 25, 198). If the above circumstances are the land of this case, the way of this case falls under the land stipulated in the above Article. Further, if the defendant installed a fence to make it considerably difficult for them to pass by residents, such act constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic, and the judgment of the court below is correct and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding legal principles, such as theory of lawsuit.

The Supreme Court's precedent that the theory of theory is arbitr cannot be an appropriate precedent for the instant case, because it differs from the facts recognized by the court below. All the arguments are unacceptable on the premise of facts different from the facts recognized by the court

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Chocheon-sung (Presiding Justice)