The judgment below

Part of the cost of lawsuit, excluding the portion of the cost of lawsuit, shall be reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than eight months.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding (as to the crime of interference with general traffic as stated in the judgment of the court below) that the defendant sets up goods, etc. on the bridge as stated in the judgment of the court below, but the above bridge is installed individually by the existing owner of the land of this case, and since the above bridge is private from the point of the completion of the bridge to the entrance of the farm of this case, it cannot be deemed that the defendant

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of fact, the purpose of interference with general traffic is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by destroying or infusing a road, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means. The term "land" here refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public. It does not interfere with the ownership of the site, the relation of traffic, or the right and the passage of the traffic, or the passage of the traffic, or the sound, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 201Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). Further, the general traffic obstruction is not a so-called abstract dangerous crime, and if it is impossible or substantially difficult to pass through the road or if it is difficult to pass through the village, and it is not a result of the passage of the above land lawfully established by the evidence of the court below prior to 205Do540, Apr. 26, 2002).