The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public as referred to in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and the ownership relationship of the site, traffic relationship or legal relationship, or a large number of traffic participants, etc. do not go through. As the site in the attached Form of the judgment of the court below (hereinafter referred to as the "section D") is essential for the injured party to go to the land owned by the injured party, and the land in the part of the "D" (hereinafter referred to as the "section D") in the judgment of the court below is also necessary for the injured party to go to the land owned by the injured party, and it is reasonable to view it as a road that can pass by the "specific majority" when considering the current use status of the injured party, such as the road to be used for the same purpose, and the possibility of future use.

Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a not guilty verdict of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is difficult to view the part “D” as “land access” as prescribed by general traffic obstruction. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment

2. Determination

A. On March 14, 2011, the Defendant: (a) was awarded a successful bid for a house on the ground of the Namyang-gun, Namyang-gun; and (b) on August 1, 2012, the victim D registered the transfer of the ownership of land E.

On November 28, 2014, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking registration of creation of superficies against the victim to use his/her own house, and acquired the legal suspension commercial zone for the portion of “D” as a site necessary for the maintenance or use of the building on November 28, 2014. The part “D” was used as a vehicle traffic after the victim performed flat work for road traffic.

Around April 15:30, 2016, the Defendant reported that the victim’s vehicle is parked in the victim’s residence located in the above E area. The Defendant parked the Defendant’s Furf car on the land above E, which acquired the legal suspension commercial zone, so that the Defendant could not pass through the victim’s vehicle by parking the Defendant’s Furf car on the land. The Defendant received a report from the victim.