The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not the road provided as a passage for many and unspecified persons, and even if the entrance installed at this place is the mother of the defendant and the defendant was not diving, the court below convicted of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles of obstruction of general traffic, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to, causing damage to, or interference with traffic by means of land, etc. or causing substantial difficulty in traffic by causing damage to, or interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do4266, Jul. 9, 2009). Here, the term “land access” refers to the wide passage of land actually being used for the traffic of the general public, and thus, the ownership relation of the site, the relation of the traffic, or the relation of the traffic, or the relation of the traffic, is not prohibited.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750 Decided February 22, 2007, etc.). Meanwhile, the crime is a so-called abstract dangerous crime where traffic is impossible or substantially difficult, and it does not have to occur as a result of traffic obstruction.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do468 Decided December 11, 2008, etc.). B.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence duly examined and adopted by the court below, the farming roads of this case are set up as part of the Saemaul Project around 1970 as part of the Saemaul Project and it can be sufficiently recognized that the village residents see the farming roads of this case as a passage to and from the roads around which they walk. Thus, the farming roads of this case cannot be seen as the land actually used for the traffic of the general public.

C. Meanwhile, the court below is legitimate.