The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. The roads as stated in the facts constituting the crime in the judgment of the court below (hereinafter “road of this case”) do not constitute “land roads” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act.

In addition, although the defendant installed a pents on the road of this case, the defendant's act does not constitute a general traffic obstruction since he did not obstruct the passage of people or automobiles.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on general traffic obstruction, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On February 3, 2015, the Defendant: (a) installed the sole passage through which he/she can enter the “C” located in Gangnam-si B (hereinafter “instant restaurant”); (b) installed the fences of 30.25 meters in length; (c) reduced approximately 3-3.5 meters in length to 2.07-2.84 meters in length; and (d) obstructed the traffic of the above land, which is a place for the general public’s traffic.

3. The lower court determined that the instant facts charged constituted a general traffic obstruction, on the grounds that the instant road was the sole way leading to the instant restaurant, which is the only way to serve the public, such as restaurant customers, and that the Defendant installed a gate that restricts the width of the instant road, making it impossible for large vehicles, such as buses, such as buses, to use the instant road, and that the instant vehicle can pass through the instant road with due care.

4. Judgment of the court below

A. The term “land access” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a place of public use for the traffic safety of the general public, i.e., a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass through, without limited to a specific person.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do401, Apr. 27, 1999). Accordingly, a restaurant operated by a specific person is operated.