The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the facts charged in the instant case, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the ground that it is difficult to say that the road that the Defendant obstructed passage is a road provided for general traffic. However, in light of the purport of Article 185 of the Criminal Act, only the road provided for large number of unspecified traffic does not necessarily constitute a crime of interference with general traffic, and even if so, it is interpreted by such restriction.

Even if the road in this case falls under the contact point with the general road, it shall be deemed to be the road provided for general traffic, so there is an error of law by misunderstanding the fact that the court below acquitted it, or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence of a fine of two million won imposed by the lower court is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles on the assertion of facts is a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which is protected by the law of the safety of the general public. Here, "landway" refers to a place of public traffic, i.e., a place of public nature with which many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass through without any specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do401, Apr. 27, 1999). 2) The following circumstances acknowledged by evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① even according to the statement of C, the location where the defendant installed a vehicle and interfered with access is limited to the land owned by C's family or the person found in C's house, and it appears not to be a common passage for the general public (the 96th day of the investigation record and the trial record). ② The prosecutor also claims interference with general traffic by visiting the defendant.