The appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of protecting the safety of traffic in the general public. Here, the term "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic in the general public, and it does not interfere with the ownership of the site, the right to passage, or a large number of traffic users and the redness, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007). According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the passage of this case constitutes "land passage" under Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and the passage of this case constitutes interference with general traffic as long as the defendant planting trees or embling them above the ground, resulting in inconvenience to people and de facto difficulty in traffic.

In addition, the court below did not have any intention to commit a general traffic obstruction to the defendant.

The court determined that it is difficult to see that there is a justifiable reason for misunderstanding that his act does not constitute a crime.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. In so doing, there were no errors by misapprehending the legal principles on land access or errors in law, or by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules.

In addition, the remaining grounds of appeal are not legitimate grounds of appeal, as they are alleged in the grounds of appeal that the defendant did not regard them as grounds of appeal or that the court below did not consider them as subject to ex officio.

In addition, even if ex officio, any act is a justifiable act as a reason for excluding illegality.