Article 185 of the Criminal Code Scope of Land-ro

Article 185 of the Criminal Act provides that the benefit and protection of the law is the traffic safety of the general public. The term "landway" refers to a place of public passage to and from the general public, that is, a place of public character in which many, unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses can freely pass. This passage merely refers to a place in which a former owner or a defendant has an access to use and a temporary part of the land is used, and it is difficult to view it as a place of public nature used in the free passage of the general public because neighboring residents are not a place of public nature used in the free passage of the general public.

Article 185 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 83Do2617 delivered on September 11, 1984 (Gong7439No1669) 84Do2192 delivered on November 13, 1984 (Gong74351)

Defendant

Defendant

Seoul District Court Branch of Seoul District Court (85 High Court Decision 1607)

The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

The gist of the defendant's appeal is as follows: First, if the defendant and the non-indicted 1 were to use the land at the location of the Guro-gu Seoul (Sturb omitted) for the purpose of using the land as a new public passage, it is merely impossible for the defendant to use the land at the location of the non-indicted 1,77 square meters (hereinafter referred to as "the building site"), the width of which is 7 meters long, and the passage of 55 meters long (hereinafter referred to as "the passage") to the center of the building site was used by the non-indicted 1,5 meters prior to 10 years ago, it is nothing more than the above residents' temporary or semi-public passage under the permission of the owner of the building site, and the passage of the non-indicted 1,64 meters prior to the construction of the land at the location of the non-indicted 5, the defendant's use of the building site at the location of the non-indicted 1,64 meters prior to the construction of the road at the location of the non-indicted 1, thus it cannot be viewed that it interfere with the general passage.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty on the ground that the main passage was the land stipulated in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and found the defendant guilty on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the land access in general traffic obstruction, and therefore, the defendant's attorney's second ground for appeal cannot be exempted from reversal without further determination.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed in accordance with Article 364 (6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the principal source is decided as follows after pleading.

The summary of the facts charged of this case is as follows: "the defendant installed a steel net at the 1,777 square meters radius of the co-owned land of the defendant and the non-indicted 1 located in Guro-gu Seoul (detailed number omitted) around June 27, 1984, at around August 27 and September 13, 1984, the above land surface was cut back to a spacul, and 80 enterprises occupying the above land adjacent to the above land, and the above land used for the general public and the passage of vehicles such as the residents living adjacent to the above land, such as the residents living adjacent to the above land and the above-mentioned land, which interfere with their traffic by damaging and blocking the customary roads of the above land." Thus, this is not a crime as seen earlier, and thus, the defendant is acquitted pursuant to the former part of Article 325 of the Criminal Procedure Act.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.

Judges Lee Jae-dam (Presiding Judge)