The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. According to all the evidence of the gist of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles), the court below found the Defendant not guilty of the facts charged of this case on the contrary premise due to misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles, although the land access in YE C (hereinafter “the instant land access”) is to be the land used by a large number of unspecified persons for vehicle traffic.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged reveals that the Defendant interfered with traffic by setting up about six chemical cancers on the ground of the land in the Hasan-si (hereinafter “instant land”) located in the Hasan-si (hereinafter “Hasan-si”), from June 2014 to October 2014, thereby making it impossible for the Defendant to pass through the vehicle.

B. The lower court’s judgment: (a) around October 27, 2010, based on the records, acquired the following circumstances; (b) the Defendant acquired the instant land and three lots of land, including the instant land, and the relevant ground and building (hereinafter “real estate owned by the Defendant”) by auction; and (c) D acquired the instant land and 704 square meters on September 12, 2012 and newly constructed a detached house on the ground around 2013; (d) the housing was located at a place where 250 meters was entered into the instant land along the paths connected to the instant land; and (b) the Defendant immediately going through the instant land in front of his/her house, and thus, there is a risk of traffic accidents in cases of traffic accidents.

I think, as stated in the facts charged, it was impossible for people to pass the vehicle on the instant land by setting six omanites on the instant land, but it was possible for people to pass on the road; ③ The statement of village residents (F, G, H, I, etc.) submitted D on whether the instant land passed by many unspecified vehicles on the instant land; and ③ The statement of village residents (F, G, H, I, etc.) submitted D on whether the instant land passed freely.

On the other hand, the statement of village residents (J, K, L) submitted by the defendant is written that the land of this case is not a road for vehicle traffic.