All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of the legal principles) is that the complainant notified of the order to suspend construction works in Kimhae-ju, and thus, the complainant prevented the entry into the road only for the newly constructed vehicle of the stable construction. Such Defendants’ act is a legitimate act that does not go against the social norms and is thus dismissed.

2. The purpose of Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish any act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to or influence of land, etc. or interference with traffic by other means (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). In addition, the crime of interference with general traffic by one person is an abstract dangerous crime, where traffic is impossible or considerably difficult, or difficult, and the result of traffic interference is not practically generated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Do14703, Nov. 26, 2015). In addition, where it is impossible or impossible to pass through a vehicle due to the construction or maintenance of a track on a road or the installation of a rail gate, the crime of interference with general traffic by the Defendants’ lawful construction and construction of a motor vehicle is established (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Do14706, Nov. 30, 2009).

However, according to the on-site photographs, etc. at the time of the instant case, it can be recognized that the said farming road was obstructed to the extent that it cannot pass by the general vehicle, etc. (2) The above farming road is frequent by the Bupyeong Agriculture Organization, but the farm owner also has a car.