The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal does not constitute “landway” in the crime of interference with general traffic since the instant alley road (referring to a alley road with a width of 2.75 meters and a size of 23 square meters among the land B in the Dong-si; hereinafter the same shall apply) is not a place provided for general traffic, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant still has access to the said land after installing a fence, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant interfered with passage since he could still pass through people. Notwithstanding the fact that the Defendant’s act of installing a fence on the said land was a legitimate exercise of rights as the owner, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case on a different premise

2. Determination

A. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to, causing damage to, or interference with traffic by means of land, etc., or significantly obstructing traffic by other means. Here, the term “land access” refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public. It does not include ownership of the site, traffic relation, or traffic right relation, or traffic congestion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002).

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances are acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, ① the Defendant was co-owner of the B B large 542 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Ansan-si, Seoul-si, and was divided into land (C, D, etc.) due to the termination of mutual title trust (Seoul District Court Decision 2010Na1386, Sept. 16, 2010), and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer under one’s own name after being assigned a F parcel number as to the 107 square meters among them. ② The instant alley road in this case.