The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual errors and misapprehension of legal principles) is that the instant land is not a place used for the traffic of the general public. Thus, even if the Defendant developed it as dry field, it does not constitute a general traffic obstruction act.

Even if the land of this case is a place used for the traffic of the general public, the defendant's act is to exclude the act of infringement on the ownership of his own land, and thus, it is justified.

2. Determination

A. Around April 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was a person who was the owner of the area of 978 square meters or more prior to C before C in permanent residence; (b) developed a dry field on the grounds that D’s family members, etc. were not free of charge, thereby hindering the transportation of D’s family members, etc. who freely passed the place.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the aforementioned facts charged in full view of the admitted evidence.

C. The purpose of the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to or infusing land, etc., or significantly obstructing traffic by other means, as a crime under the benefit and protection of the law of the general public’s legal interest (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). The term “land access” refers to a place used for the traffic of the general public, i.e., a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass through, without limited to a specific person.

In light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, the evidence alone presented by the Prosecutor does not limit the road portion to a specific person, but can be freely passed by many and unspecified persons, vehicles, and horses.