The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Although there is a fact that misunderstanding of facts by the defendant installed two pillars on the road of this case as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment below, the road of this case is not a place where many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses pass, but a substitutepass road exists, and thus it does not constitute an object of general traffic obstruction, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant, by misunderstanding of facts, is erroneous, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

The Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, has a risk of collapse by entering a large-scale construction vehicle through the road in this case, thereby preventing access to a large-scale construction vehicle and allowing access only to a small-sized vehicle. This constitutes a legitimate act or self-defense, and the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal principles, such as legitimate act, etc.

Judgment

As to the assertion of mistake of facts, general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to an offense of which the legal interest is the general traffic safety of the general public. Here, "land passage" refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public. It does not go through ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or a large number of traffic users and studs, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). In addition, the purpose of interference with general traffic obstruction is to punish all acts of making it impossible or remarkably difficult to pass by causing damage to or by land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means, and it does not mean that the so-called abstract dangerous crime, which is so-called abstract danger crime, in which traffic traffic is impossible or remarkably difficult, and the result of traffic obstruction should not be practically caused.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4662 Decided December 14, 2007, etc.).