The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (definite or misunderstanding of legal principles) is the land owned by the Defendant and the land above is not the land offered to the general public for the traffic of the general public.

In addition, the victim's vehicle occupied the land owned by the defendant and parked the vehicle by preventing the entry of the car engine of the defendant's driver, and the defendant did not park the above car engine in order to obstruct the passage of the general public and the activities of the victim.

2. Determination

A. (1) Determination of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as to the assertion of facts that the purpose of general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by damaging or infusing the road, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means, and the term “land” here refers to the wide passage of the land actually used for the passage of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or heavy and sound, etc. are not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007; 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007). According to the evidence of the court below, the victim of the above land is duly connected with the above land to the land and the land on which he/she had access to the land and the land on which he/she had access to the land.