The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Grounds for appeal;

A. The road indicated in the facts charged of mistake of facts (hereinafter referred to as the “road of this case”) is not a land that is commonly used for the traffic of the general public, and the pipe indicated in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant pipe”) is installed by the defendant, and is an object owned by the defendant. The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of each of the facts charged of this case on different premise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts

B. The court below's sentence of unfair sentencing (the fine of 500,000 won) imposed on the defendant is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the assertion of mistake of facts, and the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to the crime of interference with the general traffic safety of the general public as the legal interest protected by the law. The term "landway" refers to the wide passage of land that is actually common use for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or the passage and traffic right relation of the person passing through and passing over, etc. are not prohibited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). In addition, when the successful bidder pays the successful bid price in the auction procedure, the object of auction shall be owned by the successful bidder, regardless of whether it is registered, and the ownership of a paper which is the constituent part of the object of auction or contributes to the commercial use of the object of auction shall also

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, the road of this case was constructed to the extent that one of the non- packing roads was able to pass, and it appears that community residents, including D and the defendant, were using the road of this case connected to G to the F site in Yangwon-gun and its surrounding farmland, and at the time the defendant owned the house recorded in the facts charged of this case (hereinafter “the building of this case”).