The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Legal principles 1) Passing roads E in the North Korean-U.S.-U.K. (hereinafter “instant passage”).

(2) The meaning of “influence of traffic” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is not a passage used for the traffic of the general public, and thus does not constitute “land” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act. The meaning of “influence of traffic” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an act corresponding to the act of damaging or influenceing the road, and the act of removing two stones by the Defendant does

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

B. Other roads leading to F land (hereinafter “instant land”) in addition to a mistake of fact-finding as well as the passage of the instant land. As such, the Defendant does not interfere with the passage of the instant land.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 300,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment 1 on the assertion of legal principles as to whether the passage of this case constitutes "land" under Article 185 of the Criminal Act or not, and the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense, the legal interest of which is the protection of traffic safety of the general public. The "land passage" refers to a wide range of the land passage used for the passage of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or heavy and redness of the passage do not occur (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007). Meanwhile, the court below asserted the same purport as this part of the appeal at the court below. On the other hand, the court below rejected the passage of this case in around 2.5m and about 205m in length, and the owner of the passage of this case did not specifically raise any objection to the use of the passage of this case as an access road to the land of this case, and the owner of the passage of this case did not own the land of this case prior to its entry.