The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The road of this case of mistake of facts cannot be seen as a “land” which is a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons, motor vehicles, and horses can freely pass.

In addition, the arboretum was operated for religious activities unrelated to the arboretum, and the defendant did not interfere with the operation of the arboretum.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (the fine of 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the purpose of the relevant law general traffic obstruction is to punish all acts of causing damage to or influence of land, etc. or causing substantial difficulty in traffic by causing damage to or influence to traffic by other means (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475, Sept. 15, 1995). Here, the term “land access” refers to the wide passage of land actually used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic rights relation, or heavy and sound, etc. are not prohibited (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651, Jul. 27, 199). In addition, the general traffic obstruction is a so-called abstract dangerous crime, where traffic is impossible or substantially difficult, and it does not have to cause actual result of traffic obstruction.

(2) In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the defendant and village residents, J, K, the village residents, and the arboretum managers, the road of this case mainly used the road of this case, and the vehicle of this case was allowed to pass along (Evidence No. 40, 46 pages). (2) The victim has been operating the arboretum before acquiring the ownership of the land in which the arboretum is located, and the victim has been also fluord trees.