A. Although it was true that the Defendant, as a factual misunderstanding, he he stockpiled a stone stone on the instant road, he was able to pass through the vehicle through the remaining parts because he was he stored only a part of the road, and even 30 minutes of time to prevent the passage.

However, the lower court: (a) obstructed the passage of land by the Defendant for one hour by piling up stone on the road.

The wrong determination was made.

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

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the court below was justified in finding the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case, and there was no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the Defendant, since the Defendant dump trucks he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he he accumulated a stone stone across the front lane of the road of this case by using a dump truck, and used a dump rail after approximately one hour.

B. As to the wrongful assertion of sentencing, the sentencing is based on the statutory penalty, and the discretionary determination is made within a reasonable and appropriate scope, taking into account the factors constituting the conditions for sentencing as prescribed in Article 51 of the Criminal Act.

However, considering the unique area of sentencing of sentencing of the first instance that is respected under the principle of trial priority and the principle of direct jurisdiction taken by our criminal litigation law and the nature of the ex post facto review of the appellate court, the sentencing of sentencing of the first instance was exceeded the reasonable scope of discretion when comprehensively taking into account the factors and guidelines for sentencing specified in the first instance sentencing trial process.

In light of the records newly discovered in the course of the appellate court’s sentencing hearing, it is reasonable to file an unfair judgment of the first instance court, only in cases where it is deemed unfair to maintain the sentencing of the first instance court as it is for the court to judge the sentencing of the first instance court.

In the absence of such exceptional circumstances, there is no exception.