The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The main point of the grounds for appeal is that the road (hereinafter “instant road”) installed on Pyeongtaek-si C (hereinafter “C”) that the Defendant obstructed traffic through fume, constitutes the land for general traffic obstruction, but the court below did not recognize it and acquitted the Defendant, and there is an error of law by mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles.

2. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was around 08:00 on August 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) set up a hacker box at the end of the said road and set up 15 concrete futile on the said road in order to prevent the Defendant from carrying out a vehicle for the construction of the land on the grounds that consultation with the owner of the adjoining road about the cost for the expansion of the road does not take place, on the road owned by the Defendant’s wife in Pyeongtaek-si; (b) in order to prevent the Defendant from carrying out a road for the construction of the land on the grounds that consultation regarding the cost for the expansion

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the traffic of the land by ordinary vehicles.

3. The purpose of the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the former Criminal Act is to punish all acts of causing damage to or infusing land, etc. or significantly obstructing traffic by other means, which are crimes under the benefit and protection of the law of the public safety (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.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 99Do401, Apr. 27, 199). According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the video of the present road (Evidence No. 37 through 41, 69 through 73) of the Defendant’s photograph, which is linked to the road of this case owned by D, the denied owner of the Defendant.