A. The land owned by the Defendant that was left by the Defendant of the misunderstanding of the fact is the location where the Defendant left the bit, and there was no fact that the vehicle B was difficult to pass.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 2,00,000) is too unreasonable.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the defendant, in order to prevent his/her vehicle from passing through the road of this case (the road of this case, which is its neighboring land beyond the boundary of the F land in the Haung-gun, Goung-gun, Goung-gun, and the owner of this case (the wife in the Appellant B) beyond his/her own ownership for the purpose of the dispute with B, E, and the road of this case, which is its adjoining land, can be recognized as the part of the road of this case, as described in each of the facts charged of this case. The defendant's assertion on this part is not accepted [it is reasonable to accept the defendant's assertion that this part of the road of this case, contrary to the defendant's assertion, if the defendant's land was owned by the defendant at the place where he/she was accumulated with his/her compost, is a road for the passage of the general public, regardless of its ownership relation (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do1651, Jul. 27, 199).

(See Supreme Court en banc Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In full view of the following: (a) there is no special relationship or change of circumstances that may be newly considered by this court; and (b) other various sentencing conditions in the instant records and pleadings, including the Defendant’s age, character and conduct, family relationship, circumstances leading to the crime, and circumstances after the crime, the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable beyond the reasonable scope of discretion.

The defendant's assertion is not accepted in this part.

4. Conclusion.