The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor of the gist of the grounds for appeal, since the Defendant’s passage through which the Defendant installed a pipe and wire-line and obstructed passage (hereinafter “instant passage”) falls under the land stipulated in the general traffic offense, general traffic obstruction is established. The Defendant can recognize the fact that the Defendant interfered with the Victim’s farming business by installing a pipe and wire-line on the instant passage and blocking passage. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles and misapprehending the legal principles.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the passage of this case is located at the last part of the road, and there is only a vinyl house of the victim, and there is no other facility or building, and it is difficult to view that many and unspecified persons use the passage of this case.

Therefore, we affirm the judgment of the court below that the passage of this case is not a land which is the object of obstruction of general traffic since it is insufficient to view it as a public place in the traffic of the general public.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is not accepted.

B. As the court below properly explained, it is difficult to view that the defendant interfered with the victim's agricultural business by blocking the passage of this case, in light of the following: ① the victim used the passage of this case after creating a water pool, ② the defendant's use of the passage of this case, ② the defendant's unclear whether the victim actually cultivated in the plastic house at the time of installing the hack pipe and steel network on the passage of this case, ③ it is unclear whether the farming machine should have access at all times in light of the size of the victim's plastic house, ③ it is unclear whether the victim's plastic house should have access at all times, and the passage through which people can have access is secured.

Therefore, the prosecutor's assertion on this part is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the prosecutor's appeal is justified.