2. The Defendant asserts in the lower court that the assertion is identical to that alleged in the judgment.

The lower court rejected the assertion by stating the judgment in the judgment.

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant's act can be deemed as a traffic obstruction, and it is difficult to view it as a legitimate act.

① The witness E of the lower court, which was the first instance court’s 1962 witness for the passage of this case, was the village and the passage of this case, when he was born by his high tide in the lower court before he was born.

was stated.

It has functioned as a major road that connects the houses, facilities, and dry field with the passage roads of this case, located at the center of the village.

Since about 20 years ago, the function of the road has been strengthened, being sealed in asphalt.

The village residents passed the road of this case by driving the horse, track, track, vehicle, etc. other than Pyeongtaekdo (the trial record 70,93 side). <2. The residents who intend to pass through the road of this case with a ten-meter quantity only after the passage of this case shall return to the distance of 1 to 2 km (the trial record 71,95 side). <3> The Defendant knowingly purchased the road of this case within the land (the e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e. the e

④ A considerable part of the passage way was hedging without sufficiently undergoing consultation with village residents prior to the hedging of the road in this case (in particular, the road in this case did not proceed with the procedure).