The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The roads indicated in the facts charged in the grounds for appeal (hereinafter referred to as the “traffic roads in this case”) are not roads used by many and unspecified persons, but those used only by certain persons, and are public-purpose.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty on the facts charged of this case. In so determining, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and mistake of mistake.

2. The judgment below held that the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime that protects the legal interest of traffic safety of the general public, and "land" refers to a place of public nature where many and unspecified persons or motor vehicles and horses are permitted to freely pass through without any specific person, i.e., a place with public character. As long as it is recognized as land, G has no ownership relation, traffic right relation, or heavy and sound, etc.: ① from September 2012 to September 1, 2012, it used the above building through the passage route of this case, which is the only way leading to the above building; ② from September 2012 to May 4, 2013 to May 5, 2008, it appears to have been used by the Internet Training Institute for the purpose of using the above land as the passage route of this case, and ④ from around 1,000 to 2,000, it appears to have been used by the Korea Forest Training Institute for the purpose of this case.