The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses of the trial shall be borne by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and mistake, the road of this case does not constitute “land” as referred to in general traffic obstruction, i.e., a road provided for an unspecified number of traffic, and there was no intention to obstruct traffic.

Even if there had been interference with traffic

Even if this is temporary, it does not significantly obstruct the passage of victims, and it does not open the blocking system for a short period of time to notify and urge payment of sealed tolls is a legitimate act, and it is a social act that is allowed as such.

Nevertheless, since the court below found all of the facts charged guilty, it erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence that the court below sentenced against the defendant (the penalty amount of KRW 5,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) Any interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime that legally protects the safety of general public traffic, and its purpose is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass by causing damage to or infusing land, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means. Here, the term “land” refers to the wide passage of land in fact being used for the traffic of the general public. It does not refer to the ownership relation of the site, the relation of the traffic right, or the traffic, or the traffic, and it does not interfere with the traffic flow of the general public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 201Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002; 2006Do9418, Mar. 15, 2007). It does not necessarily mean that the so-called crime of interference with general traffic under Article 184, etc., such as where it is impossible or substantially difficult to pass by the general public (see, 2018Do14.