The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Reasons for appeal

A. In light of the fact that the road where the Defendant’s misunderstanding of fact installed the pipe structure is the private land owned by the Defendant’s wife, and the traffic of large trucks, etc. is possible even after the installation of the above pipe structure, the passage became impossible or remarkably difficult due to the Defendant’s act.

The defendant has no intention to interfere with general traffic.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact 1) The purpose of obstruction of general traffic is not only to damage or infusing land, etc., but also to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by interfering with traffic by other means, which are crimes that protect the public’s legal interest and protection of traffic safety.

General traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime in which traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the result of traffic obstruction is not practically necessary (see Supreme Court Decision 2017Do9146, May 11, 2018, etc.). In addition, “land access” in one general traffic obstruction refers to the wide passage of land that is actually common to and from the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic relation, or traffic relation, or traffic relation, and deficit, etc. are not neglected (see Supreme Court Decision 94Do2112, Nov. 4, 1994, etc.).

Although the lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal in this part, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the grounds of various circumstances as indicated in its reasoning.

The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., the road at issue in this case, is the passage of the general public.