The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal of this case (road in the part where the defendant installed fences, etc. on the ground of Gyeonggi-gun D) cannot be deemed to have been used for the traffic of the general public, and despite the fact that the defendant still is possible to pass the vehicle even after installing fences on the road of this case, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case to have committed an error of mistake or of misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to, damage to, or interference with traffic by, the surface of the road, etc., or by other means. Here, the term “landway” refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public. It does not include ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or heavy and sound of traffic, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007). Comprehensively taking into account the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, ① The road of this case is a crime involving the safety of traffic of the general public, such as destruction of, damage to, or interference with traffic by, the passage of the road, etc. by, the Defendant and neighboring residents FC, G weather, and other means. However, it is difficult for the construction business operator of the road of this case to use the Internet Hospital training building, and ③ the construction business operator of the road of this case starting from the Internet Hospital to its length.

On the premise of the above legal doctrine, the above facts are examined.