(영문) 대법원 2015.12.24. 선고 2015도7055 판결

1. The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense, the legal interest of which is the protection of the traffic safety of the general public. The term "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land that is actually used for the traffic of the general public. It does not go through the ownership relation of the site, the traffic right relation, or the heavy and hostileness of traffic users (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Do18, Apr. 25, 198; 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007).

2. Based on its stated reasoning, the lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the part of the road in this case is part of the land owned by the Defendant or the Defendant’s son and the land at which the complainant’s house is located and it was used as a passage to and from his house, and therefore, the part of the road in this case is difficult to be deemed as a place of public character for which many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass.

3. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept in light of the following circumstances. According to the records, the part of the road in this case is a road which is usable for passage of vehicles and horses, such as passage of people about two meters wide, such as transportation of goods or transportation of farming, etc., and is used as a road for several hundred and twenty years. However, although two households of the complainant and J actually use the part of the road in this case, it can be seen that the complainant and J may pass through and file a complaint andJ house, or access to adjacent dry field or forests. Thus, the part of the road in this case shall be deemed as falling under "land as a passage of land for public use by the general public," and the act of obstructing passage through dry field constitutes a obstruction of general traffic.

4. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that such act does not constitute a general traffic obstruction, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment

5. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.