The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In light of the fact that the Defendant, as recorded in the facts charged, installed a steel fence (hereinafter “instant fence”) in the part 7.4m wide and 2m long from among the roads located in Jinju-si C (hereinafter “the instant land”), as indicated in the facts charged, to block the road. However, in view of the fact that the instant land owned by the Defendant and the Defendant did not waive exclusive and exclusive rights to use and profit, and that there was a separate passage as a state-owned road, the category of land in the neighboring public register, the ownership of which was owned by the Defendant, was located, the Defendant installed the instant fence as part of the exercise of property right without any intention to interfere with general traffic, but the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and thus, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts

B. In light of the fact that the land of this case was owned by the defendant and the defendant removed the wall of this case after the crime of this case, the punishment by the court below (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts that cause damage to or influence to traffic safety by the general public or interfere with traffic by other means, and thus make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by means of causing damage to or influence to traffic safety. Here, the term “land” refers to a place of public traffic by the general public, namely, a place of public nature where many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass through without limited to a specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1376, Feb. 25, 2010). In fact, the term “land traffic interference” refers to a place of public nature where the general public can freely pass through, without limited to a specific person (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1376, Oct. 26, 2007).