The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not a road that obstructs general traffic, but a road is not a road that obstructs the traffic of the defendant, and it does not interfere with traffic since the defendant could pass along the Track by the Track by the Track (misunderstanding of facts). The judgment of the court below is unfair because the punishment (2.5 million won) imposed by the court below is too too unreasonable (the sentencing is unfair).

A. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act regarding the assertion that it is not a road that is the object of interference with traffic among the assertion of factual mistake is a crime that protects the safety of traffic of the general public, and the term “landway” here refers to the wide passage of land actually being used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site or the relation of traffic and the right or the passage of the passage of the persons, and the whistle, etc. are not prohibited (Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7279 Decided June 13, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, a road that is actually constructed among the land in Busan Metropolitan City (the crime of the crime of the court below is referred to as the “road front of Busan Metropolitan City” in the judgment below).

In light of the following: (a) the intermediate point of the instant road (hereinafter “the instant road”); (b) the instant road does not contain packaging; (c) the width of the automobile was secured; (d) the instant road is accessible to a building located in the surrounding land other than the Defendant’s house; and (d) the instant road is the only way for the instant road to pass through and make it possible to pass by a motor vehicle; and (d) the instant road is open to the public and its passage was possible, it is reasonable to deem that the instant farmland falls under “land” as the passage of the land, in fact, for the passage of the general public. Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion that there was no traffic obstruction among the allegation of fact-finding.