The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

A. A road written in the facts charged (hereinafter “road in this case”) does not constitute “land access” as provided by the general traffic obstruction.

B. The Defendant’s act is a legitimate act that does not contravene social rules, since fences, entrances, and locks are installed on his own land to preserve a tomb.

2. Determination

A. 1) Whether the current status of the road in this case constitutes land or a crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of protecting the general traffic safety of the general public. The term "land passage" refers to the wide passage of land that is actually being used for the traffic of the general public. It does not go through the ownership relation of the site, the relationship of the right and the right and the passage of the passage or the passer, and it does not change even if there is no person other than the owner of the neighboring land (see Supreme Court Decisions 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007; 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). In light of the above legal principles, in light of the above legal principles, the current status of the road in this case as a witness before the first instance court, and the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the current status of the road in this case as a witness before 20 years ago.

(1) The witness P of the lower court stated to the effect that he had the cryptians in order to establish the cryptians. (2) The cryptians, including the Defendant, used the present situation in this case, stated to the effect that the cryptians used the present situation, and stated to the effect that he had the cryptians, and the shape of the road is relatively clear even in the photographs (providing site) submitted by the cryptians.