A. The Defendant of mistake of facts shall install fences and plant trees outside the boundary line of the road section where the right of passage over surrounding land has been recognized.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) In fact-finding (1) The crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is an offense, the legal interest of which is the protection of the traffic safety of the general public, and the term "land passage" refers to a widely known passage through land used for the traffic of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or heavy and hostileness of the passage, etc. (Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903 delivered on April 26, 2002). (2) The defendant asserted the same in the court below, and the court below rejected the above assertion in detail by stating the defendant's argument and the judgment on the argument of the defendant and his defense counsel in detail. In light of the above legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is justified and it is not erroneous in the misapprehension of facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and the defendant's assertion is not justified.

B. Comprehensively taking account of the various sentencing conditions indicated in the records and arguments of the instant case of unfair sentencing and the fact that the Defendant was punished for the same crime, the lower court’s sentence is too unreasonable.

3. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act on the grounds that the defendant's appeal is groundless. It is so decided as per Disposition