The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Incheon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The purpose of general traffic obstruction is to punish all acts that cause damage to or influence of land, etc., or obstruct traffic by other means and make it impossible or considerably difficult (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Here, the term “land” refers to the wide range of the passage of land, in fact, commonly used for the traffic of the general public, and is not the ownership relation of the site, the traffic right, or the traffic congestion of the traffic, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651, Jul. 27, 199). In addition, the general traffic obstruction is so-called abstract dangerous crime, where traffic is impossible or substantially difficult or difficult, and it is not the actual result of traffic obstruction.

(2) On October 28, 2005, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on employment evidence. The court below acknowledged the following facts. The passage of this case was actually used as a passage to F new road from F new roads and neighboring residents to F or house protection area on the local roads of strengthened Gun, and actually used as a passage to and from the general public, but the defendant constructed a new house on the ground of Incheon Reinforcement-gun's O land (hereinafter referred to as "land number") around 2010 when it was used as a concrete package to use each road and land category, land category, G and C in front of the house and land category, which are farmland, to be used as E, in order to restore to the original state following the order to restore the land category to E, the land category remains, and land category, land category of G remains, and land category of which is farmland, and there exists a new road to be used as a new passage to the new road in the new direction of strengthening the passage from the local government.