beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (the mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles);
A. A road where the Defendant installed a steel structure (hereinafter “instant road”) is currently a private road registered in the name of the Defendant’s spouse and children, and is currently a farming road established for the passage of the former and the latter, such as a fish, etc., but a part of the village residents without the consent of the Defendant’s referring to the former owner at the time. The road is used as a vehicle passage after conducting the confirmation and packing construction without permission. The period of use is not longer the only passage through which the instant road is leading to the road. Thus, the instant road does not constitute the land which is the object of the obstruction of general traffic.
B. In the meantime, the Defendant could not exercise the right to claim compensation under the statutory procedure because it is impossible to identify the perpetrator even though he suffered considerable damage due to various vehicle accidents, destruction of water, excessive dumping of garbage, etc. on the road of this case. Therefore, the Defendant restricted the passage of some vehicles by installing steel structures on the road of this case for the prevention of such accidents or damage, land management, and cultivation.
Therefore, the illegality of the defendant's above act is excluded as self-defense and self-defense.
2. Determination
A. Whether the road in this case constitutes “land” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of interference with general traffic safety, the purpose of which is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means. The term “land” here refers to the wide passage of land in fact being used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the land, the traffic rights relation, or the traffic congestion, etc. are not prohibited (see Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002).