The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the instant land is not a road used by the general public for vehicle traffic, and thus, it does not completely obstruct the passage of the vehicle by installing a fence of the Defendant.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous as a mistake of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime that legally protects the traffic safety of the general public. The "land" refers to a place of public access to the general public, i.e., a place of public character where many and unspecified people or horses are allowed to freely pass through without any specific person, and as long as it is recognized by land, the ownership relation of the site, traffic relation, or traffic relation, or traffic relation, or traffic congestion, etc. do not occur (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1697, Aug. 19, 2005). 2) According to the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the land in this case was used as a passage of neighboring residents, many and unspecified people, and vehicles with a width of 265 cm. Thus, the defendant constructed a pent, which makes it substantially impossible to pass the vehicle because it has been narrow to the extent that the width of the vehicle is narrow.

Examining the above facts in light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of causing the passage of a vehicle allowed to pass on the previous road by significantly restricting the width by installing a fence on the land of this case constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic. Thus, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is justifiable (in a case where there is a alternate

Even if it is reasonable to see that the act of blocking traffic on roads offered to the general public for traffic, constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic, so the defendant's above assertion by the defendant is without merit. 3) Therefore, the above argument by the defendant is justified.