The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 700,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact-finding or legal principles, the Defendant’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that he sprink up a stone in the side part of a road of three meters wide (hereinafter “instant road”) located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and he he sprink up a stone in a way of cementing above, but there is no evidence to deem that the width of the instant road has been significantly reduced from 3m to 2.1m as in the instant facts charged, thereby hindering the passage of the vehicle. Even if the width has decreased, most vehicles other than certain vehicles, such as large trucks, are allowed to pass through, and thus, it cannot be said that the Defendant could not be said that the passage of the instant road was impossible or significantly difficult, and thus general traffic obstruction is not established.

B. The lower court’s sentence on the ground of unfair sentencing (hereinafter “fine 1,00,000”) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the purpose of the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to or infusing land, etc., or significantly obstructing traffic by other means, and the road farming industry was established as a farming road for the sake of passage of a road farming industry, such as a chill for farming or fishing.

Even if the road is actually a road for the traffic of the general public, it is not a road for the traffic of the road, but a road for the traffic of other vehicles. Thus, if the traffic of such vehicles is obstructed, it constitutes a interference with general traffic.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, i.e., the roads of this case, namely, the consent to land use, such as the Defendant and F, the owner of neighboring land, on December 3, 2008.