All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal in this case is the private property owned by Defendant B, and the original state restored to their original state by walking the package at the original state, and it is not a public place for the traffic of the general public, and Defendant A did not engage in any act described in the facts charged in this case.

2. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest of the general traffic safety of the general public is protected. The term “land access” refers to a place of public access to the general public, i.e., a place of public character where many and unspecified people, motor vehicles, and horses are permitted to freely pass through, without limited to a specific person. The ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or the passage relation or heavy and hostileness of traffic, etc. In the meantime, the crime of interference with traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to the case where traffic is impossible or remarkably difficult as an abstract dangerous offense, and the result of interference with traffic does

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9838, Jan. 24, 2008) Doctrine, witness F, G, H, I, J, and K have observed that two persons including Defendant A, etc., including Defendant A, in the court of original trial, use the insertion to the place indicated in the facts charged in the instant case where the village access road is located, and he/she has opened through the road, and only all persons entering the village have access roads other than the above access road, and the road width is narrow, ground is weak, and they are rarely used for almost all the risks at the time of entering the vehicle. Each of the above statements made by each of the above witnesses are relatively specific and consistent from the investigative agency to the court of original trial, and are not specially distorted or distorted, and thus, credibility is credibility in each statement.

In full view of each of the above witnesses' statements and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the case is examined.