The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is not a road used for the traffic of the general public, but a road installed at will and used by F0,000. However, considering the future use of land, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine by determining the above road as a place for the traffic of the general public, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense in which the legal interest of the general traffic safety of the general public is protected. The term “land access” refers to a place of public access to the general public, i.e., a place of public character where many and unspecified people, motor vehicles, and horses are permitted to freely pass through, without limited to a specific person. The ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or the passage relation or heavy and hostileness of traffic, etc. In the meantime, the crime of interference with traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to the case where traffic is impossible or remarkably difficult as an abstract dangerous offense, and the result of interference with traffic does

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Do9838 Decided January 24, 2008, etc.) The defendant asserted the same purport as the above reasons for appeal at the court below, and the court below held that "the reasons for the crime of oil" is a road established in order to allow people, vehicles, and horses to freely pass through the land. H, the owner of the same G land, is required to use the land of this case. The defendant newly constructs three Dongs on the land owned by the defendant in the vicinity of the above land, and tried to sell two Dongs among them to third parties. Accordingly, in light of these circumstances, the defendant's roadside land should also be used in order for the housing owners to pass through the building owned by each of them.