A. In fact, the Defendant, at the time of the instant case, parked E in a place where the Defendant had parked before that time and parked a vehicle inevitably at the location indicated in the facts constituting the crime of the lower judgment, and only moved the vehicle at around 22:08 on the day of the instant case at the request of the police officer dispatched, and the Defendant did not have any intention to interfere with traffic. After the Defendant moved the vehicle, the Defendant did not interfere with the traffic of the instant road.

B. Even if the instant facts charged are found guilty, the sentence of the lower court (an amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake, and the statement of J and H, the Defendant: (i) moved to a place where the Defendant had parked before and around March 1, 2015; and (ii) parked a DD vehicle owned by himself/herself at the middle of the instant side road as it is if the borrower of the said vehicle could not be confirmed; (ii) the instant side road is limited to the extent that the width of the vehicle is available for two teachings; and (iii) it was impossible for the Defendant to walk the said road if the vehicle was parked in the middle of the road as above; (iv) the Defendant was parked on the ground that the vehicle was parked in the place where he was parked, and (iv) the Defendant was driving a vehicle after driving the vehicle, and it was impossible for the Defendant to go through the said vehicle by telephone, making it impossible for the Defendant to go through the said vehicle again. However, the Defendant’s response was made to the request by the Defendant.