2. The Defendants did not pay each of the above fines.

1. Defendant A

A. On September 16, 2014, Defendant A interfered with traffic of the Namyang-si, Namyang-si, who used the land owned by the Defendant on the 4-meter road located in Namyang-do, Namyang-si, Gyeonggi-do, without paying the usage fee, and instead filed a complaint with the competent authority due to the violation of the Farmland Act, etc. against the Defendant, and thereby interfered with traffic by stockpiling a stone of about 170 centimeters in width, about 150 centimeters in height, and about 10 meters in length until November 10, 2014.

B. On September 17, 2014, Defendant A interfered with the general traffic of vehicles around 4 meters in width in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, for the same reason as the above paragraph (a) on a road located in D, the width of which is about 110 centimeters, a height of which is about 150 centimeters, and a length of which is about 5 meters, stored at the edge of the road, and obstructed the traffic by making it considerably difficult for the vehicle to communicate until November 10, 2014.

2. Defendant B: (a) around September 17, 2014, around 4 meters in width in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, the same Nein-si’s land owned by the Defendant was dissatisfied with the use of the said land without paying the usage fee; (b) left 1 meters in width at the most recent road; and (c) left 6 centimeters above 110 centimeters in height and left alone; and (d) obstructed the traffic by making it considerably difficult for the vehicle to flow through the said road until November 10, 2014.

[Defendant asserts to the effect that general traffic obstruction is not constituted because the road of approximately two meters leaves a road to the effect that it would not interfere with the traffic of the vehicle. However, in light of the fact that the above road is the only passage to neighboring residents and commercial buildings from the road to the adjacent residents, the remaining width of the road left by the Defendants is to the extent that it would be impossible for the Defendants to pass through the rail when a passenger car passes through the road at the price of the car and it would be likely that large vehicles would pass through the rail, and therefore the traffic obstruction is established.] The summary of evidence is established

1. Each part of the defendants.