The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal is that the instant land is not a public place for the traffic of the general public, and even if the Defendant developed it as dry field, it does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic.

Even if the land of this case is commonly used for the traffic of the general public, the defendant's act is to exclude the act of infringing on the ownership of his own land, and thus, it constitutes a justifiable act.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the pertinent facts charged or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the lawful act, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of protecting the traffic safety of the general public. Here, the term "land passage" refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic safety of the general public. It does not see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750 delivered on February 22, 2007, etc.). The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below are as follows: ① The road portion is a road which has been used for the traffic safety of the general public across a hundred and twenty meters, such as transportation of goods or transportation of transportation; ② the road portion of this case mainly obstructs the actual use of the road, other than the road portion, and the use of it by the general public, and the act of the defendant's access to the land within the dry field or surrounding dry field constitutes a dry field or surrounding dry field.

B. H. H. means by which the instant act was committed.