The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of the Heung-gu Kug-gu C (hereinafter “instant land”) and part of the said land was used as the passage of neighboring residents along with D roads adjacent thereto.

On February 2, 2016, the Defendant interfered with traffic by installing a steel fence on the boundary of the land owned by the Defendant due to a dispute over the land boundary with the permanent residence and land boundary with a neighboring police officer.

2. Determination

A. The purpose of interfering with general traffic safety under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by interfering with traffic by destroying or blocking traffic by obstacles (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Here, the term “land” refers to a place provided for the traffic of the general public, i.e., a place with a public nature where many and unspecified persons or horses are allowed to freely pass through without limiting a specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2617, Sept. 11, 1984; 2002Do7292, Feb. 28, 2003). Even if a building is located lawfully, it can constitute land stipulated in the above provision, but it does not constitute an incidental land that is owned by another person’s land and its owner’s land under the aforementioned legal doctrine with the consent of another person’s land’s temporary use or land’s use under the same 26.