The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court determined that the road (hereinafter “the road of this case”) under the facts charged of this case constituted a place where many unspecified persons, motor vehicles, and horses can freely pass through. However, even after the construction of the road of this case, there is no closed route with the existing cattle, and the road of this case does not constitute a land which constitutes the elements for the obstruction of general traffic, as a road exclusively used by CB only, which constitutes a ground constituting the element of the obstruction

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which pronounced guilty against the defendant is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the judgment.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The lower court’s determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is as alleged by the Defendant. However, according to each of the evidence of the lower judgment, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion that the instant road does not constitute a land which constitutes a constituent element of the obstruction of general traffic, and found the Defendant guilty of the charge, on the ground that the instant road constitutes a place where many unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses can freely pass through, and vehicles and horses can be used, on the ground that the instant road falls under a place where it is not a land that constitutes a constituent element of the obstruction of general traffic.

(2) The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which is protected by the law of the safety of public traffic, is a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and the land of this "land" is a place of public traffic, i.e., the place of public traffic,