Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, including each statement of the police interrogation protocol, written statement of the police statement about the suspect interrogation protocol, C, and D against the Defendant, the Defendant interfered with the entry of dump truck necessary for the victim's clothes operations by setting up a horse on the access road leading to the victims' response around March 26, 2016. On the same day, around 16:30 of the same day, the Defendant interfered with the passage of dump truck by blocking additional access roads using the sp vehicle owned by the Defendant, and around 16:00 of April 7, 2016, by blocking the passage of vehicles by force on three occasions, such as interfering with the passage of vehicles by the Defendant by cutting off the access road at the expense of the Defendant, and even if the Defendant installed the access road at the expense of the victims, and other roads are in transit by the victims, such circumstances shall not affect the establishment of the work.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no illegality of misconception of facts pointed out by the defendant

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is without merit and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act (the prosecutor's appeal is dismissed in the first instance court for the reason that it prevents the victims from having access to dump trucks which perform dump trucks for the purpose of newly dumping the farmer's death).