The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds for appeal did not make the passage of the road of this case impossible or considerably difficult due to the same act as the facts charged by the defendant, and the victim’s hospital operations did not interfere with.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the court below found guilty of the facts charged of this case.

2. The purpose of general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, road, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means, as an offense, under the legal interest protected by the law of the general public’s traffic safety (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Moreover, general traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, where traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic obstruction should not be practically caused.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545 Decided October 28, 2005). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant: around March 17, 2013, approximately 6 meters of the width of the road of this case entering the D Hospital into the D Hospital, 150 meters wide so that he can cut off or walk off the string, and connected the string pipe with the string tape, or installed a string tape. On the 27th of the same month, the defendant brought a container of 6 meters wide and 2 meters high on the road front the front of the above hospital. According to the above facts, the vehicle of the patient of this case, as well as the vehicle of the patient of this case from time to time the ambulances of the hospital of this case, the patient of this case who received a prescription issued by the above hospital of this case, brought about the way of the patient of the above hospital or the place where the patient of the above hospital of this case was parked.