A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant installed one container on the access road to the village (hereinafter “road of this case”) as stated in the facts charged, but such place cannot be deemed as “land” as referred to in the general traffic obstruction, and thereby did not reach the extent that the traffic was impossible or considerably difficult.

In light of the circumstances where a container was installed, there was no intention of the defendant to obstruct the traffic.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal doctrine, and the circumstances properly explained by the lower court, the road of this case constitutes “land” provided as a contribution to residents living in the inside of the road for a long time and visitors thereto, and the Defendant’s act of making it impossible or considerably difficult for the traffic of the vehicle or the traffic between vehicles available for passage or the traffic between vehicles by significantly restricting the width of the road by installing containers at the same time constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic.

B. As long as the width of a vehicle is significantly restricted by installing a container, it can be easily recognized that the passage of a vehicle, etc. is impossible or substantially difficult due to such restriction, the criminal intent of interference with general traffic is also recognized.

We do not accept the Defendant’s factual mistake and misapprehension of legal principles.

3. There is no significant change in circumstances to consider the sentencing of the defendant after the judgment of the court below regarding the unfair argument of sentencing.

Examining the conditions of sentencing and the reasons for sentencing indicated in the records and changes in the instant case, even if considering all the circumstances alleged by the Defendant on the grounds of appeal, the lower court’s sentence cannot be deemed unfair due to the lack of sentencing.

We do not accept the defendant's unfair argument of sentencing.

4...