The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence shall be suspended for the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the forest road located in the forest land located in Kimcheon-si, Kimcheon-si (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) is not a public place for the traffic of the general public, but a concrete round-up is a round-down road at a place adjacent to the forest of this case. Thus, the forest of this case does not constitute the “land road” of the general traffic obstruction.

The Defendant was intended to restrict the passage of vehicles and equipment when leaving a line on the forest road of this case, and there was no intention to obstruct the general traffic by making the general public significantly difficult.

The defendant's leaving the forest road of this case at issue is not illegal as an act of a political party to prevent damage to the defendant's private forest.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of two million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) The purpose of the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish any act that causes damage to or makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Here, the term “land access” refers to a place of public traffic, namely, a place of public character in which many and unspecified persons or horses are allowed to freely pass through without limited access to a specific person, and so long as it is recognized as land, it refers to a place of land’s ownership, traffic relation, or many and large traffic-related persons are not neglected (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Apr. 26, 2002).