The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error) is that the Defendant was established for the cultivation of a paddy field near the road of this case (hereinafter “the road of this case”), and six times of cultivation of the paddy field around the road including D, which used the vehicle, have been used for the passage. Even if the part adjacent to the part entering the road of this case is not connected with another road because it is in contact with the paddy field, it can be sufficiently recognized as being a common land for the passage of the general public, but it is erroneous in the judgment of the court below that the charge of this case did not constitute a obstruction of general traffic, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The judgment of the court below can be recognized as follows: ① the road of this case was originally narrow length where the defendant could not have a bicycle; ② the road of this case was opened a farm road for temporary passage, such as the passage of a neighboring farmer, including himself/herself; ② the road of this case was merely 1-1.5 meters wide, making it difficult for the defendant to pass through at all times without any influence on the dry field cultivated by the defendant; ③ the road of this case is not connected with other roads; ③ the six persons using the road of this case cultivated the dry field surrounding the road of this case. The six persons other than D are deemed not to use the road of this case for regular passage of the vehicle. If the construction and passage status of the road of this case are the same, it can be recognized that other farmers other than D are not using the road of this case for regular passage of the vehicle. Thus, if the construction and passage status of the road of this case are the same, D's legal statement, D's police protocol, D's protocol of statement of witness, D's protocol on the road of this case, and multiple public roads.