The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute “land access”, which is the object of general traffic obstruction, and the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, on the contrary of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, although the Defendant’s act did not interfere with the passage of the motor vehicle or interfere with the victim’s business.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense under which the legal interest of the general traffic safety is protected. The term “land” refers to a wide range of the land passage used for the passage of the general public. It does not go through the ownership relation of the site, the traffic right, or the passage of the person who actually uses the land (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do18, Apr. 25, 198; 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007). In light of the above legal principles, the land of this case was determined differently by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, and the land of this case was 5 meters wide, which is the land category of the road, and the land of this case was actually used by the person who actually uses the land of this case to the general public and the person who actually uses the land of this case. The land of this case was determined differently from the person who actually uses the land of this case to the general public.

It should be viewed differently.