The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant installed a pents on the instant land, he was able to open up the entrance so that the passage can be made up to the opening and closing door, and there was no fact that he allowed not only the person but also the vehicle to pass through the road.

B. Since there was a “Songyang-gu E road” other than the instant land, it would not interfere with passage due to the Defendant’s act, and it did not interfere with the victim’s new construction work of multi-household houses.

C. Despite the Defendant’s instant act, the victim completed all new construction of multi-household housing and sells it in lots. In light of this, it is clear that the construction work has not been interfered with.

Before installing a pension, the Defendant knew the fact to the victim, and the victim consented to the installation of a pension.

E. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to, causing damage to, or interference with traffic by means of land, etc., or causing substantial difficulty in traffic by other means. Here, the term "land passage" refers to the land passage widely used for the traffic of the general public, and it does not include ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or heavy and redness of traffic users.

Furthermore, even if the owner of a part of the land used as a passage of many unspecified persons is the owner of the land, the act of leaving the surface on the middle of the road or blocking the passage of the vehicle by hedging it constitutes the crime of interference with general traffic and interference with business.

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on April 2002