The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although there is a fact that the defendant misunderstanding of facts has accumulated earth and sand on the road of this case, the road of this case is the private land of the defendant, and it is possible to pass through through the bypass, it cannot be deemed that the defendant interfered with the passage of the road.

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

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to or infusing the land, etc. or significantly obstructing traffic by causing damage to or infusing the land, etc., or by other means, as a crime that is protected by the legal interest of the general public in regard to the assertion of mistake of facts (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995; 2008Do10560, Jan. 30, 2009). Here, the term “land” refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public, and thus, the term “land passage” in this context refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public. As such, it does not contribute to the ownership relation of the land, the right to traffic, or the heavy and timely drinking of traffic users.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651 delivered on July 27, 199). In addition, in a case where a significant narrow breadth makes it possible to pass only a vehicle with a certain size below a certain size and it became impossible to pass the vehicle originally possible to pass, such an act constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is recognized that the road of this case is connected with the housing of four households, including the housing of complainants in the original city F, and it was a place where many and unspecified persons and motor vehicles are allowed to freely pass through the road of this case, and that it was impossible for the defendant to use the road of this case for about two days by stockpiling earth and sand on the road of this case.

2.2