The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. As stated in the judgment of the court below, the Defendant brought containers to the valley area (hereinafter “traffic route of this case”) that passed the land (D; hereinafter “the land of this case”) owned by the Defendant in Ilyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, U.S. as shown in the judgment of the court below. However, the above traffic route is only used by F, his family members and lessees operating H in the above G, and therefore, it cannot be deemed as falling under the land of Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

B. Although the width of the road already offered as a passage among the instant passage is less than 3 meters, F arbitrarily expanded 3 meters. Thus, the scope of the passage should be limited to 3 meters in width already used as a passage.

However, the defendant has been provided as an existing passage while taking containers.

3m wide portion is left, so long as there was some inconvenience in traffic due to the narrow damage of traffic routes.

Even if it does not constitute a significant obstacle to traffic.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish any act that interferes with general traffic safety under the protection of the public, by causing damage to or influence of land, etc. or significantly obstructing 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 access to the general public, namely, a place of public access to which many and unspecified persons or horses are free access, without any specific person, and does not include ownership of the site, traffic relation, traffic relation, or traffic relation, or heavy and hostileness of persons (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do18422, Sept. 28, 2016).