All of the appeals by prosecutors are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below held that the access road of this case was a place where many and unspecified people communicate to and from the country, but there was no proof of a crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the fact that there was no proof of a crime.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, it is reasonable to see that the access road of this case is a place where many and unspecified persons come into common use, and it can be recognized that the defendant had a criminal intent to commit a traffic obstruction. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the crime of traffic obstruction, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. As to the judgment of the court of first instance, the summary of the facts charged is as follows: (a) the Defendant is widely aware of D’s inspection, which is located in the Gyeongnam-gun, the Gyeongnam-gun, the Gyeongnam-gun. The Defendant: (b) from March 2011 to August 2012, 201, left a parking lot of a vehicle owned by the Defendant on the access road to the temple, which is 2.5 meters wide; (c) thereby hindering traffic on the land through which general vehicles pass; (d) the purpose of the judgment of the court of first instance is to punish the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which is to damage or influences through the land, etc., or to punish any act that makes it impossible or remarkably difficult for the Defendant to pass through by interfering with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995); and (d) the term “public traffic” means a place where many and unspecified people freely pass.