A. Defendants 1) 1) misunderstanding of facts concerning general traffic obstruction, misunderstanding of legal principles (Article 1(1)(Defendants) and 2(A)(Defendants A)) as to this part of the Defendants’ grounds for appeal are similar. Thus, the Defendants’ assertion in the grounds for appeal on this part is also indicated together. The land in Yongsan-gu, Changwon-si C (hereinafter “instant land”).

The road is not a road used for general traffic. The main purpose of the road is to restore concrete to its original state and not to obstruct traffic (Defendant A). It is nothing more than passive defensive actions to prevent infringement of private property as land owner (Defendant B. 2). It is for Defendant B(Defendant A) of Article 2-A and Section B(b) of the facts charged (misunderstanding of facts as to obstruction of business, misunderstanding of legal principles as to interference with business, and piling up soil to the land of this case on April 2016. After that, it is difficult to set up a reflosion, stone, and soil. After that, the vehicle of this case coming from the above, the Defendant stopped at around 11:0 on May 27, 2016 and stored soil and stones, and it is nothing more than that of the Defendant’s land owner’s permission at around 11:0 on May 27, 2016, and it is nothing more than that of the Defendant’s land owner’s act to prevent infringement at the site.

3) Since misunderstanding of facts as to the violation of the Management of Mountainous Districts Act, misunderstanding of legal principles (Defendant A) J, K land (hereinafter “J and K land”) has been used as dry field, orchard, and site from the past, it does not constitute mountainous district.

B) L land (hereinafter referred to as “L land”)

the defendant does not cut and damage the defendant.

Temporary buildings of P land in accordance with the order to restore the Mhap-gu Office.