The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Regarding the fact-misunderstanding general traffic obstruction, farming roads established on the Defendant’s land located in Namyang-si, Namyang-si (hereinafter “the farming roads in this case”) are part of the entire farming roads, and they were established on each land owner’s own land for the convenience of each landowner due to division, and were not used for an unspecified number of traffic, and were not used as the residents’ countermeasures. The Defendant did not constitute “land”, which is a constituent element of the general traffic obstruction, and the Defendant was not around 14:00 on February 9, 2015, but around 16:40 on February 16, 2015, which is the date indicated in the indictment, up to 14:0 on February 9, 2015, and up to 40 on the land in this case, dived soil was stored in the course of flatized work to catch farmers’ houses on the land in this case. This did not interfere with traffic and there was no intention of general traffic obstruction.

In addition, there was a controversy as to whether or not the victims' permission to build concrete other construction works was granted at the time of the instant case, and even after the Defendant moved the vehicle, the construction vehicle will return to the victim's work without seeking entry. Thus, the Defendant's act interfered with the victim's work.

There is no intention to commit a crime.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 4 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact 1) As to the assertion that it is not a land offered for the traffic of the general public in relation to the point of general traffic obstruction, the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to a crime that legally protects the traffic safety of the general public. Here, the term “land” refers to a wide range of a land passage used for the traffic safety of the general public. It does not prevent ownership relation of the site, traffic relation, or traffic relation, or traffic relation, or traffic relation, or traffic congestion, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Do7279, Jun. 13, 2013). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court: