The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The main points of the grounds for appeal include the fact that the access road of this case is used by E, but it is possible to access E by using the access road, which is another access road to the house of E.

The access road of this case is mainly used by E and the persons from the house pass along the access of E, and it does not fall under the land of Article 185 of the Criminal Act as a road provided for the access of the general public.

2. Determination:

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a crime of protecting the traffic safety of the general public as a legal interest. Here, the term "land passage" refers to the wide range of the passage of the land that is actually common to the general public through the passage of the general public. It does not lead to the ownership relation of the site, the relation of the right and the right of the passage, or the filling of the pass, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do18, Apr. 25, 198; 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007).

1) The Defendant is the owner of D land in Ansan-si, and E is the owner of K’s land.

2) E has used access roads (hereinafter “the access roads of this case”) to his own land via the above land owned by the Defendant on the outside of the road. The land owned by E is a house and dry field, and E is cultivating dry field while residing therein.

3) The access road of this case was in the state where the vehicle can proceed, and the right road claimed by the Defendant ought to go through the dry field of E, which either cut off another’s house or is cultivated, or another’s dry field.