The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is a private road which does not contribute to the traffic of the general public.

In addition, there is no fact that the general public traffic has been obstructed due to the vehicle parked by the defendant.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense, the legal interest of which is the protection of the traffic safety of the general public. The term "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land used for the traffic of the general public, and in fact, refers to the land passage through which the general public passes through, and not to the ownership of the site, the traffic right relationship, or the large and hostileness of the passager, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). Therefore, even if it is a passage through which no other person uses it except two households, it constitutes land as provided for the interference with general traffic.

(Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750 Decided February 22, 2007). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, it is recognized that the Defendant: (a) attached a paper attached to the glass hold of one ton cargo vehicle from January 19, 2018 to February 2, 2018, stating that “the roads located in Incheon-gun B are private grounds, and thus, are prohibited from unauthorized Access; (b) the above roads are continuously connected to H, I, and J roads; and (c) the said roads are located adjacent to the said H, I, and J roads, and it appears that the above roads should be used in order to go on the front answer.

In light of the above surrounding lands, it is reasonable to regard the above roads B as the land referred to in general traffic obstruction. As long as the defendant prevents by using a vehicle a passage on land that is commonly used for the traffic of the general public, this constitutes general traffic obstruction.

B. In addition, the defendant asserts that he acted as described in the facts charged in order to inform him of the fact that the above road B is an individual private ground, and the record reveals that the defendant was the above B.