일반교통방해
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant spawned bricks to mark the boundary of the land owned by him, and there was no intention to obstruct traffic.
In addition to the road of this case, since there are other bypass roads besides the road of this case, the road of this case cannot be seen as the "land passage" of general traffic obstruction.
Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and by misapprehending the legal doctrine.
On the other hand, the punishment (fine 2 million won) imposed by the court below on the defendant is too unreasonable.
2. Determination
A. The Defendant and the defense counsel asserted misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles also asserted the same purport as the above misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles.
Therefore, the court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that "the road of this case is, in fact, deemed necessary for the passage of the general public for official traffic, on the basis of the detailed circumstances in the last part of the summary of the second evidence of the judgment, and therefore, it is found guilty of the facts constituting the crime."
Examining the above judgment of the court below in comparison with the records of this case, the judgment of the court below is just.
Since the defendant's intention and criminal facts are all recognized, there is no error of misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant and defense counsel.
Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.
B. It is recognized that the instant road on the ground of unfair sentencing is part of the land purchased by the Defendant, and that the Defendant has no criminal power.
However, it is difficult for the defendant to understand the crime of this case due to a defense that is difficult for the defendant to understand until the trial of the case, and it is not against the law. The road of this case is an entry into the dwelling of 11 households used by the aged aged people from the city to the 11st of the city, and the road of this case is a part which was packaged by the defendant before the purchase.