The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor as to the gist of the grounds for appeal, the fact that the Defendant interfered with traffic on the road by blocking the front of the F driver’s vehicle and F, can be sufficiently recognized.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts which make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to or infusing land, road, etc., or other means, as an offense, the protection of the legal interest of which is the traffic safety of the general public.

(Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475 Decided September 15, 1995, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Do1926 Decided July 10, 2014). Meanwhile, Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to the destruction of a road by materializing it so that it would lose its utility, and it would make it impossible to use the road for its original purpose, such as the act of blocking the passage through a road by installing an obstacle, thereby making it impossible to use the road for its original purpose. Thus, if the act of blocking the passage and making it impossible to use the road for its original purpose, it is not necessarily limited to the act of using the road. Traffic obstruction by “other methods” also refers to the act of intentionally destroying or causing a direct obstacle, or the act of impairing traffic safety by causing a threat to traffic safety.

(See Constitutional Court Order 2009Hun-Ga2, Mar. 25, 2010). In light of the above legal principles, it became impossible to pass through the general public beyond that of the movement of a specific person due to Defendant’s act.

It is difficult to see that the defendant has reached a state that is considerably difficult or difficult to do so, and the defendant operates E.