The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal lies in the fact that the Defendant placed one stuff on the road as stated in the facts charged, but ① the above road is not a road through which ordinary vehicles pass, but is able to pass through the vehicle even after the container stuffing. ② The court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, even though the Defendant was before the victim’s warehouse management and transfer operation began, there was an error of misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is a person who asserts the C’s right of retention at the time of strike, and the victim D acquires each ownership of E, F, G, and H on April 15, 2013, and the same Gyeonggi-do Pakistan is the only passage of E, etc.

On April 24, 2013, the Defendant interfered with the traffic of the land passage of ordinary vehicles by placing one container stuff at the Han-ro, Pakistan-si, Gyeonggi-do, in the Han-do., the Defendant interfered with the management of the victim's warehouse and the transfer of materials to a warehouse by force.

B. The lower court’s determination as to the general traffic obstruction (1) is that the term “land access” in general traffic obstruction refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public, and does not go through the ownership relation of the site, the right to passage, or the large number of traffic visitors, and sound, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651, Jul. 27, 199). In addition, the general traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime that the traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, and the traffic obstruction does not need to be practically caused by the traffic obstruction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005).

E owned by D and K, etc. located around the above road, was the only passage of factories, etc., and ② the facts charged of the instant case.