The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The mountain paths located in the member-gu D Forest (hereinafter “the forest of this case”) in Ansan-si, a local residents made concrete with the construction of concrete and used it as de facto passage without the consent of the head of the forest and field owner, and the defendant did not have any intention to obstruct traffic.

Therefore, it is deemed that the passage was prevented by stockpiling earth and sand on the mountain roads in the instant forest or parking vehicles.

of the general vehicles that interfere with traffic or interfere with another person's business;

It is difficult to see it.

Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of factual mistake, general traffic obstruction is a crime that legally protects the traffic safety of the general public, and its purpose is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995). Here, the term “land” refers to a land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public, and thus, neither is the ownership of the site nor the traffic relationship, nor the traffic relationship, nor is it possible for a person to pass by the general public (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651 delivered on July 27, 199). In addition, general traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, and if traffic is impossible or substantially difficult, it is not the result of the immediate interference with traffic (see Supreme Court Decision 200Do548 delivered on May 25, 200).