The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that there is no village resident who has obstructed traffic due to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, there is another road on which the residents of the village can enter without using the land that the defendant obstructed, and the surrounding farmers did not use the road of this case but did not use the road of this case, and the defendant's act does not go against the social rules or is not likely to be subject to criticism.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of facts (1) The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to, or disturbance of traffic by means of land, etc., or causing a substantial difficulty in traffic by causing damage to, causing damage to, or interference with traffic by other means. Here, the term “land access” refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public. It does not include ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or traffic right relation, or traffic congestion of a person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007). (2) In light of the above legal principles, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted by the public, the court below and the first instance court, and the first instance court, it constitutes “land access” as provided by Article 185 of the Criminal Act as the land access to the general public.

The defendant's general traffic obstruction is established as long as the defendant makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass the passage of the passage of this case, even if there is a passage through surrounding farming land except the passage of this case.

(1)