The sentence of sentence against the defendant shall be suspended.

A. In fact, while recognizing the fact that the Defendant laid three hack pipes and three hacks on the instant road, it cannot be deemed that the instant road does not correspond to the “land” as prescribed by the general traffic obstruction, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant made the passage of the instant road impossible or considerably difficult due to the mere hacks and hacksing the above hacks and hacks, and the Defendant did not have any intention to obstruct the passage of the instant road or interfere with the victim’s business, but otherwise, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant interfered with the traffic by leaving the hack pipes and hacks on the instant road, and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant sold the land owned by the Defendant to the victim, but the victim did not pay any balance of the purchase and sale, and the victim lent his name to purchase real estate from a third party, but the victim was faced with a criminal complaint from a third party due to his failure to pay the purchase price, thereby resulting in the instant crime as part of the act of aiding and abetting the victim, which constitutes a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act. However, the lower court asserted that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the lawful act and thereby adversely affected the conclusion of the judgment.

C. The Defendant asserts that the sentence imposed by the lower court (a fine of 300,000 won) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The facts charged in this case

1. On February 9, 2015, the Defendant general traffic obstruction sets up three (4m in length, 20cm in diameter) and three (3) of the pipes on the roads B at G in Yangyang-nam-si. The general public.