The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal lies in the current status where the complainants can pass, except for the roads in this case, and the passage in this case cannot be seen as having access to the roads in this case without any person other than the complainants.

In addition, the Defendant: (a) even though he installed the instant steel mill and steel pent; (b) provided a key to the complainant at any time so that he can unfold it; and (c) provided a key to the pentus at any time; and (d) the length of the pentus was limited to 3 meters so that the vehicle can pass at any time; and (c) obstructed traffic.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misunderstanding the fact, since the court below neglected this and sentenced the defendant guilty.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio, the prosecutor applied for amendments to a bill of amendment to the indictment with the following contents: (a) before the judgment on the grounds for appeal ex officio; (b) the prosecutor was in the trial of the case, which changed the part of the facts charged in the instant case to “in the vicinity of the said land B with a steel gate installed, and interfered with traffic by installing iron agents in the vicinity of the said land; and (c) the part that “in the vicinity of the said land C interfered with traffic by installing iron agents and iron bars; and (d) by putting a stone in the vicinity of the said land C,” and as such, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, despite the above reasons for reversal of authority, the defendant's assertion of mistake is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts

A. As a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of protecting the safety of general public’s traffic, the term “landway” here refers to a crime of protecting the safety of traffic in general, and actually refers to the wide passage of land that is commonly used for the traffic of the general public, and neither the ownership relationship of the site, the relation of the right and the relationship of traffic, nor the large number of traffic visitors nor the sound, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750 Decided February 22, 2007).