The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Defendant’s main road in Pyeongtaek-si D (hereinafter “instant road”) which obstructed traffic by installing a steel fence, is a place public for the traffic of Pyeongtaek-si D, but the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case on the ground that the instant road does not fall under such a place. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass by land, etc. by causing damage to or infusing land, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). The term “land access” refers to a place public for the traffic of the general public, namely, a place with public character in which many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass by, without limiting to, a specific person.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do401 delivered on April 27, 1999, etc.). B.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the records of this case, namely, ① farming roads and national highways Nos. 39 between nearby I forest and J forest, before C was newly constructed, were connected to farming roads near the gas filling station. However, around 2007, the construction of the gas filling station was destroyed by farming roads behind the gas filling station. ② There were no special conditions such as substitution roads for the above farming roads on the terms of permission for the above gas filling station business. ③ Although people using the above I forest and J forest pass the roads to the national highways No. 39 using a space between gas filling stations and buildings after the construction of the gas filling station, it is difficult to view the above space as a space provided for the passage of many unspecified people, ④ During that period, the owner of the road of this case and the defendant, etc. implied the passage.