The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. D Land owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant land”) does not constitute “land access” as referred to in general traffic obstruction, i.e., a place with public character where many and unspecified persons or horses are allowed to freely pass through without limiting it to a specific person.

B. While installing fences on the boundary of the instant land, the Defendant took measures to secure the passage of about 194 cm wide for neighbors’ passage. There was no criminal intent to obstruct traffic.

(c)

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On February 2, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 10:00 on February 2, 2015, on the following grounds: (b) commercial buildings located in E in the two-way land owned by the Defendant, both of which are owned by the general public and vehicles, as a access road to the said land; (c) installed fences at the place to narrow the width of the vehicle by approximately 1,233 cm; and (d) obstructed the traffic of the land along which ordinary vehicles pass.

B. The lower court’s judgment held that the crime of interference with general traffic safety under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime of protecting the general public’s legal interests, and its purpose is to punish all acts that make it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to or infusing land, etc., or interfering with traffic by other means. Here, “land” refers to a place of public passage, i.e., a place of public nature where the general public passes through and from the general public, or a place of public nature where an unspecified number of people or a vehicle can freely pass through without any specific person (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Do1376, Oct. 25, 2010), based on the legal doctrine, the following circumstances duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, the land in this case is adjacent to the J-road.