The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The costs of lawsuit by the court below shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, although it did not constitute a crime of interference with general traffic by temporarily obstructing the passage of vehicles by temporarily obstructing the passage of vehicles, by misunderstanding the legal doctrine that prevents the Defendant from passing through the road five minutes. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (four months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, a general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime that legally protects the general public’s traffic safety. The purpose of this case is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to, or interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). In addition, interference with general traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, which makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through the road, and the result of traffic obstruction is not practically impossible (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). In light of the above legal principle, the following circumstances revealed by evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① an act of causing a police officer to go through the road in the vicinity of the road in question without causing the passage of the road in question.

According to H’s statement, the Defendant is on the road.