The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The road of this case is not a different one from the original point of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding the facts).

Since people no longer pay tolls and prevent them from driving the road of this case on the land owned by the Defendant, the Defendant does not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic by the Defendant.

2. As to the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, the term "landway" means a road actually used for the traffic of the general public regardless of whose owner is a manager or a site owner or the width of the surface or the passage of the road (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do2264, Jun. 27, 1989; 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below duly adopted and investigated by the evidence, i.e., (i) the road was marked as "E" on the map, and was used as a large number of unspecified land for various purposes, such as passage of village residents, passage of the Korea Forest Service, management of crops, gathering forest products, etc., and (ii) the Defendant was also aware that the road of this case was obstructed by using the road of this case from the road of this case.

The general traffic obstruction is not established.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. The appeal by the defendant is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the appeal by the defendant is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.