Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred in misunderstanding of facts.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case is established by the Defendant as the owner of the land in Seocheon-si B (C) in Gyeonggi-do, and adjacent to D land, through E, F, D, G, and H land, and leading to the J housing owned on the I land.

1) On April 16, 2018, the Defendant installed a fence at intervals of 1.3 meters from the above ground to March 24, 2018, which was installed on the ground above, and around 6.6 meters in length, at a point where approximately 4 meters moveed, thereby blocking the passage of the above current status road. (2) On September 21, 2018, the Defendant 1.1m in height, 2.94m in length, 4.2m in length, 6.18m in length, and 6.18m in width, thereby blocking the passage of the said road. (3) The Defendant installed a fence at intervals of 1.1m in height, 2.94m in height, 2.94m in length, 4.22m in length, and 6.18m in width.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds indicated in its reasoning.

C. The judgment of the court below also asserted the same purport as the reasons for appeal, and the court below rejected the defendant's assertion on the ground that the road of this case constitutes the land of traffic obstruction as long as the road of this case was actually officially used for the traffic of the general public, and that the defendant had an intention to interfere with general traffic obstruction, and found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

Upon examining records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The appeal by the defendant is without merit, and thus, it is in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.