The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. Since there is no one using the instant road after 1980, which has occurred on the side of a misunderstanding of facts, the said road cannot be deemed to be “land” as provided by Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and since the complainants currently have access to their housing without being disturbed by using other passages, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest of the general traffic safety of the general public is protected, and the term "land" refers to a place of public passage by and from the general public, that is, a place of public character where many and unspecified people or vehicles and horses are able to freely pass through, and as long as it is recognized as land, the ownership or the right of passage or the right of passage or the passage of many and hostile persons are not neglected.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1697 Decided August 19, 2005, etc.). In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the following circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., (i) the complainant D used the road in question by all the persons who belong to H and Minsan; (ii) the defendant used the road on the wind; (iii) the He used the road before his towing; and (iv) he stated that H and mail delivery division used the road; and (iii) the J stated that the road in this case is a length available to all unspecified persons, and falls under “land” as defined in Article 185 of the Criminal Act.