The meaning of “land” as provided in Article 185 (General Obstruction of Traffic) of the Criminal Act

"Landway" as stipulated in Article 185 (Interference with General Traffic) of the Criminal Code refers to a wide range of passage through land that is actually used for the traffic of the general public, and it does not lead to the ownership of the site, the traffic relationship, or the passage and use relationship or the pass-by-land.

Article 185 of the Criminal Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Do1761 delivered on September 11, 1979 (Gong1979, 12241) 87Do393 delivered on April 14, 1987 (Gong1987,849) 88Do18 delivered on April 25, 1988 (Gong1988,929)

A

Defendant

Seoul Criminal Court Decision 91No3589 delivered on September 6, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence in the judgment of the court of first instance, the criminal facts of this case against the defendant can be acknowledged. Therefore, there is no violation of the rules of evidence in the judgment of the court below.

According to the records, the defendant was referred to a simplified trial procedure following the confession of the facts constituting the crime of this case in the first instance court, and each written statement about B and C's handling of affairs by judicial police officers who committed the first instance court is sufficient to be considered as supporting evidence for the above confession.

Article 185 (Interference with General Traffic) of the Criminal Act refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public, and it does not lead to the ownership of the site, the traffic-use relationship, or the passage and use of the site (see Supreme Court Decision 88Do18 delivered on April 25, 198). In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the defendant's act constitutes a interference with general traffic, based on the factual basis of the recognition, constitutes a interference with general traffic, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as pointed out, incomplete deliberation, inconsistency with the reasoning, omission of judgment, etc.

The decisions of the party members cannot be said to be inconsistent with the above decisions unless they are appropriate in this case.

In addition, even if the court below's decision to the effect that construction of a fence is not required a building permit or report, or the public official of the competent Dong office believed the words of the public official and misjudgments that his act is not illegal, such fact alone cannot be deemed to have a justifiable ground for mistake. Therefore, the court below's decision rejecting the defendant's assertion in the same purport is justified, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the recognition of illegality or mistake of law. All of

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)