[1] The meaning of "landway" as provided by Article 185 of the Criminal Code

[2] Whether there is a justifiable reason to mislead a public official in charge of permission to believe that his/her act did not constitute a crime where he/she believed that he/she did not require permission (affirmative)

[1] Article 185 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 16 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do401 delivered on April 27, 1999 (Gong1999Sang, 1116), Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903 delivered on April 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1310) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Do2525 delivered on May 22, 1992 (Gong192, 2055), Supreme Court Decision 92Do1560 Delivered on September 14, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 2838), Supreme Court Decision 94Do1814 delivered on July 11, 1995 (Gong195Ha, 2842)

Defendant

Defendant

Law Firm E.S., Attorneys Yoon Jong-sung et al.

Suwon District Court Decision 2004No4371 delivered on February 16, 2005

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to each point of general traffic obstruction

The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime under the legal interest and protection of the traffic safety of the general public. The term "land" refers to a place of public access to the general public, i.e., a place of public character where many and unspecified people, motor vehicles, and horses are able to freely pass through, without limited to a specific person, and as long as it is recognized as land, no ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or passage relation or heavy and hostile drinking, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 9Do401, Apr. 27, 199; 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002, etc.).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below recognized and judged that the part of each of the lands of this case, which was actually used by village residents, village visitors, sexual seedlings, etc. as a passage to and from the general public, constitutes a land stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act. In light of the records and the above legal principles, the above recognition and judgment of the court below are justified, and there is no error of law such as misconception of facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding of the legal principles on "land" stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

Supreme Court Decision 88Do262 Decided May 10, 1988 cited in the ground of appeal is not appropriate to be invoked in this case as it differs from this case.

Therefore, this part of the ground of appeal is without merit.

2. As to the violation of the Forestry Act

Although permission is required by an administrative agency, if a public official in charge of permission knew that it does not require permission and believed that it does not require permission, and thus, if permission is not obtained, it cannot be punished on the ground that there is a justifiable reason for causing mistake that it does not constitute a crime even if permission is not obtained (see Supreme Court Decision 91Do2525 delivered on May 22, 192, etc.).

However, according to the records, the defendant has a plan to place the earth and rocks generated in the course of constructing fish farms and fish pipelines on his own Gyeonggi-gu Forest (hereinafter the lot number omitted) and (hereinafter the lot number omitted on the land, and hear the answer that the earth and rocks were not problematic in the Forestry Act because he asked the non-indicted who is a public official in charge, and he asked for the answer that the earth and rocks were stored on the above land. The above non-indicted India's question confirmed that "the soil and rocks generated in the construction work are not problematic in the Forestry Act (Nana site)" (the trial record 308 pages) and confirmed that the above non-indicted's fact-finding report prepared by the above non-indicted non-indicted 1 was actually a passage through which the defendant stored the earth and rocks as above and that it was a site, and if the fact-finding is found, the defendant did not have any legitimate ground to believe that the act of piling up the earth and rocks generated in the above land and did not have any influence on the conclusion of the judgment, and the court below did not err or did not err in the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below on the violation of the Forestry Act is no longer possible without examining the remaining grounds for appeal. The above crime is a concurrent crime with each general traffic obstruction crime, which is found guilty, and one sentence is imposed on the concurrent crime under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all

Justices Kim Yong-dam (Presiding Justice)