The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) a road with a large volume of 2 meters located in front of Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun (hereinafter “instant road”) located in front of the instant facts charged, has been used openly as a vehicle passage for more than 10 years from 2008 to 10 years; and (b) a large number of unspecified persons, including H, U, andO with a house or farm, who visit O, were using the instant road as a passage; and (c) an existing Jincheon-gun, Jincheon-gun (hereinafter “existing road”) lost its function as a road after 2008, making it impossible to pass the vehicle traffic; (d) notwithstanding the fact that the instant road is an area offered for the general public passage, and falls under the land stipulated in Article 185 (General Traffic Obstruction) of the Criminal Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts charged, or by misapprehending the legal principles on the land, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. "Landway" as provided in Article 185 (General Traffic Obstruction) of the Criminal Act means a place of public traffic provided to the general public, that is, a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons, motor vehicles, and horses are able to freely pass through without limiting to a specific person;

(See Supreme Court Decision 83Do2617 delivered on September 11, 1984, and Supreme Court Decision 2002Do7292 delivered on February 28, 2003, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 83Do2617 delivered on September 1

Based on the above legal principles, the lower court acquitted the Defendant on the facts charged of the instant case on the ground that it is insufficient to view the instant road as falling under “land access” offered to the general public at a place of public character with a public character freely available for the passage of many and unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses.

C. In addition to the above circumstances as decided by the court below, the court below and the trial court lawfully adopted the on-site inspection results of this court and the inquiry inquiry reply to the Jincheon-gun Office.