[1] The meaning of "land access" under Article 185 of the Criminal Code

[2] The case holding that it does not constitute a land category under Article 185 of the Criminal Code on the grounds that it cannot be seen as a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses are allowed to freely pass

[1] The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a place of public use for the traffic safety of the general public, i.e., a place of public use for the traffic safety of the general public, or a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass through without limited to a specific person.

[2] The case holding that it does not constitute a land category under Article 185 of the Criminal Code on the grounds that it cannot be seen as a place for an unspecified number of people, motor vehicles and horses to freely pass through.

[1] Article 185 of the Criminal Act / [2] Article 185 of the Criminal Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 88Do262 delivered on May 10, 198 (Gong1988, 970) Supreme Court Decision 91Do2550 delivered on December 10, 1991 (Gong1992, 559) Supreme Court Decision 94Do2112 delivered on November 4, 1994 (Gong194Ha, 3308)

Defendant

Defendant

Attorney Shin Jin-jin

Gwangju District Court Decision 98No1469 delivered on January 7, 1999

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case that he interfered with traffic by putting a fence on the house owned by the defendant on the land 1 in the Dobong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-do-

However, the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime under the protection of the law of the safety of traffic of the general public. The term "land access" refers to a place of public access to the general public, i.e., a place of public character in which many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are able to freely pass (see this Court Decision 83Do2617, Sept. 11, 1984).

In this case, the defendant installed the fence of this case as the boundary keeper between the third land of this case and the land of this case 2. The land of this case was originally used by residents of the village for the passage of the land of this case. Although the land of this case 2 was narrow, the function of the road is lost as part of the land of the land of this case 1 and the land of this case 4, and the owner of the land actually occupied and used the land of this case as a substitute for part of the land of this case 1 and the land of this case was transferred the above land of this case around 1974 and he purchased the above land of this case and constructed it on the land of this case. The above land of this case 3 is the access road of this case within the same land of this case 5 and the owner of the land of this case who is the owner of the land adjacent to the above land of the above 2 and the above land of this case, the land of this case, which was originally installed by the defendant between the above land of this case 2 and the above land of this case 3, and the land of this case 200.

Nevertheless, the court below did not look at this point in detail and found the location inside the wall of this case installed by the defendant as land and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the rules of evidence and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, or by misapprehending the legal principles on land access as provided in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)