The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. In light of the summary of the grounds for appeal (fact-finding) B and the location and use status of the agricultural roads extracted by the defendant, the farming roads in this case constitute the land stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

Unlike this, the judgment of the court below that the farm road of this case did not constitute the land stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and found the defendant not guilty was erroneous.

2. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, based on the evidence duly adopted and examined, the lower court’s evidence, such as B’s investigation agency and the prosecutor’s statement in the lower court, alone, constitutes land as referred to in Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

The Defendant found the Defendant not guilty on the grounds that it was insufficient to recognize that the traffic of the instant farm road was impossible or considerably difficult due to the Defendant’s act on the part of the instant farm road as stated in the facts charged.

1) On November 17, 1987, a sales contract was concluded between G and G, the owner of each land of this case, with the content of purchasing 22 square meters of each land of this case, in the name of F, one's own wife, and used the existing farm road as an access road to H land of this case, but the registration of ownership transfer was not completed.

3) B around 10 years prior to the instant farmland and the instant farm road, a steel door was installed in the vicinity of the instant farm road, and thereafter, a person passing through the instant farm road was limited to only the visitors to the cemetery located in the vicinity of the instant farm road. 4) Since persons visiting the cemetery via the instant farm road gets on the road and walked on the road, the instant farm road was just passed by the visitors visiting the cemetery through the instant farm road, and did not pass through the instant farm road with the vehicle.

5 Each of the instant parts, including the Defendant’s wife and Chocar on October 24, 2013 purchased by B on October 24, 2013.