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

[2] The case holding that a stock farm owner's act of building a forest road within a stock farm site and controlling the access by a vehicle does not constitute "land access" for general traffic obstruction since the above forest road is not a place with public nature, and thus does not constitute "land access" for general traffic obstruction

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 99Do401 delivered on April 27, 1999 (Gong199Sang, 1116) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903 Delivered on April 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1310) Supreme Court Decision 2005Do1697 Delivered on August 19, 2005

Defendant

Prosecutor

Attorney Noh Jae-hwan

Chuncheon District Court Decision 2004No373 Delivered on September 16, 2005

The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a place where the public traffic safety is protected by the law and refers to a place where the traffic safety of the general public is used, i.e., a place where many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are able to freely pass through without limiting a specific person (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do401, Apr. 27, 199).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning and found the following facts, namely, that the defendant constructed the forest road of this case at his own expense in order to operate the farm farm and did not construct the farm road of this case as a farm road for farming purposes. At the time, there was an existing passage road used by nearby farmers or adults of the forest of this case, and it was used as the forest road of this case even after the forest road of this case was constructed, and since 197-1998, the defendant controlled access to the forest road of this case from around 1997 to around 1998, and there was a problem by building a separate passage to connect the forest road of this case with his dry field at his own discretion and continuing to pass through the track, and it was difficult to view that the defendant, a neighboring owner of the forest road of this case, free access to the forest road of this case, and thus, it is difficult to view that the defendant's use of the forest road of this case and a nearby owner of the forest road of this case, as an individual or public nature.

In light of the above legal principles and records, such measures by the court below are just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

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

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)