The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or legal principles), D’s statement, field pictures, and field drawings and other evidence, it is reasonable to view that the aggregate of the above 85 cm breadth of the site owned by the Defendant (E) connected to D’s residence at the early stage of the early stage of the appeal as a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or horses can freely pass. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on “land” as to general traffic obstruction, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the legal doctrine that the term “landway” in the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a place used for the traffic of the general public, namely, a place of public nature where many and unspecified persons or persons are able to freely pass through without any specific person. The Defendant’s installation of the wall in this case was the only person residing in C’s ground, and there was an entrance and a studio warehouse installed in I at the time of the installation of the wall, and in particular, the studio storage was installed in a studio, with the height of the studio, and it is difficult for the general public to view that the Defendant’s actual D was residing in C’s ground building at the time of the installation of the wall in this case, based on the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, which alone proves that the part in this case is a place of public nature that can freely pass through and from a specific person or a large number of people.

It is difficult to see

The court judged the facts charged and sentenced not guilty.

B. We examine the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below in light of the record.