The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not the part of the part where the Defendant sprinked down down the hack pipe and planted trees, but the part where the Defendant was guilty of interference with general traffic by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment, even though the Defendant was a road created by the Defendant for using his own land around 2007, which was not the land originally used as a passage, around 2007.

2. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish any act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to or influence of land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means. Here, the term “land access” means a place of public nature in which many and unspecified people, vehicles, and horses are able to freely pass through, without limiting to a specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do13376, Feb. 25, 2010). In fact, it refers to a wide passage of land on which general public pass through, and in fact, it refers to a passage of land on which the general public passes through, and it does not interfere with the ownership of the land, the right of passage, or the passage of traffic, and it does not obstruct the passage of the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do7380, Oct. 26, 2007).