Article 185 of the Criminal Code 'the meaning of 'land'

The term "land access" in Article 185 of the Criminal Code refers to the wide passage of land that is actually used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relationship of the site, traffic rights relationship or heavy and redness of traffic users do not occur.

Article 185 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 4293Do588 delivered on September 21, 1960, 87Do393 delivered on April 14, 1987

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Span Ji-hun

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 87No2892 delivered on December 10, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Examining the various evidences adopted by the court below in light of the records, it is sufficient to recognize the fact that the defendant, who was formed in the 105 land at the Seongbuk-dong 1, Seongbuk-dong, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, by piling up soil and set up iron rails on the roads in which the defendant was in possession of the defendant, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or incomplete hearing by violating the rules of evidence in the above findings of

Article 185 of the Criminal Code refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public. Since the ownership of the site, traffic rights relations, or heavy and timely noise of the passing person, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Do393, Apr. 14, 1987; Supreme Court Decision 4293Do588, Sept. 21, 1960) is recognized as the land, so long as the road in this case is recognized as the land, the site owner is the defendant, and the complainant, etc. has access to the land without any title under the Civil Code, and illegally passed through the land without any legitimate permission, it cannot be deemed that the defendant interfered with the general traffic of the so-called defendant, as long as the road in this case was provided only to the minority, such as the residents at home, etc., who are the complaint, constitutes a crime of interference with the general traffic. From the purport of this case, it cannot be viewed that the decision of the court below is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles.

Ultimately, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)