Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

A. K, which was the owner of the land of Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do in misunderstanding of facts, built on its own land and sent the current status of the instant land to Pyeongtaek-gun, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”) without permission.

There is no person using the current status road of this case after K dies.

In addition to the current status of the instant case, there is also a way to move.

The current roads of this case do not constitute “land” in general traffic obstruction.

On October 13, 2016, the Defendant constructed a house with permission for development of part of the instant land upon obtaining permission for a part of the instant land. The Defendant’s construction of soil and sand that had been cut out by shotout and shotout on the current status of the instant land, and the Defendant did not sprink up soil and sand in order to obstruct the passage of the public.

The defendant did not have any intention to interfere with general traffic.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the present situation of this case constitutes “land access” in general traffic obstruction, and the Defendant is also able to be recognized with intention to interfere with general traffic obstruction. Therefore, the lower court did not err in matters of determination of facts in its judgment.

Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

Article 185 of the Criminal Code refers to a wide range of the land passage through which the passage of the general public is actually common, and the ownership relationship of the site, traffic rights relationship, or a large number of persons passing through, and red, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 88Do18, Apr. 25, 198). In Gyeonggi-do, “F residing in Pyeongtaek-gun X” used the current status of the instant case to access the land, and the Defendant could not use it as the current status after the passage.

F is the current status of this case from the original court to the residents of the F in addition to the F himself.