[1] The meaning of "land-based" in general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Code

[2] The case holding that it is difficult to view the "pass way leading to another person's restaurant within the forest owned by the defendant as a road with a public nature for many unspecified persons as defined in the general traffic obstruction

[1] Article 185 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 185 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Do401 delivered on April 27, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1116) Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903 Delivered on April 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1310) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1697 Delivered on August 19, 2005, Supreme Court Decision 2005Do7573 Delivered on October 11, 2007

Defendant

Prosecutor

Suwon District Court Decision 2009No741 Decided September 29, 2009

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to or influence of land, etc. or significantly obstructing traffic by causing damage to or influence of the general public traffic safety, which is a crime under the legal interest protected by such legal interest, and thereby to make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by other means (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.). Here, the term “land access” refers to a place public for traffic by the general public, namely, a place of public character in which many and unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses are able to freely pass by, without limiting to a specific person (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do401 delivered on April 27, 199, etc.).

The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is as follows: from April 29, 2007 to April 30, 2007, the Defendant: (a) from the access road to the forest located in Gwangju City City (hereinafter referred to as “land number omitted) to Nonindicted 1’s restaurant in the forest located in Gwangju City (hereinafter referred to as “the above forest land”); (b) on the ground that he did not exercise ownership over the above forest land, he would not use ownership over the above access road; and (c) on the ground that he would not cause damage to part of the access road surface and left the hacks by using equipment

The court below and the first instance court stated, based on the evidence of its employment, that "Non-Indicted 1 tried to build an alternative road because it would be impossible to use the existing road even after obtaining permission to change the form and quality of the access road (hereinafter "the land in this case")," and Non-Indicted 1 could not use the existing land in this case until before the end of March 2007 when Non-Indicted 1 opened a concrete packing work, and it appears that it would be inappropriate for people to pass through the city on the ground that Non-Indicted 1's land would be stockpiled and fallen leaves a lot of fallens, and as the road connected to the restaurant operated by Non-Indicted 1, it appears that the above part of the land in this case was used by the Defendant rather than the land in this case which was not packaged for the above restaurant, and Non-Indicted 1 could no longer use the existing land in this case, but only after the construction of the land in this case became final and conclusive, it was no longer possible for the Defendant to use the existing land in this case.

Examining the above circumstances in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is difficult to view the instant land as a road with a public nature for many unspecified persons as determined by the general traffic obstruction. Therefore, the judgment of the court below which affirmed the judgment of the court of first instance that acquitted the Defendant on the facts charged of the instant case on the same ground is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to the general traffic obstruction,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)