The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, even though the defendant has the right to use the farm road of this case, the victim used the farm road without permission, and taken measures to have the defendant take responsibility for the accident, etc. of the person who opened the farm road only by driving off the water. Thus, the use of the farm road of this case constitutes legitimate exercise of the right and does not constitute interference with business.

However, the judgment of the court below which convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court on the assertion of mistake of facts, the following circumstances are recognized.

① Part of the land of Q and C owned by the Defendant, including the instant farm roads, is a passage to the G land of the victim.

② On October 16, 2014 and November 23, 2017, a judgment became final and conclusive to confirm that the victim has the right to passage around the surrounding land ( Daegu District Court 2014Na 2564, 2016Na 307475) with respect to parts of Q and C, respectively. (3) Even on June 14, 2013, two years before the crime of this case, the Defendant was committed against the Defendant, and was sentenced to a fine on January 22, 2016, as the case was determined to interfere with the victim’s farming business, such as cutting down part of the farming roads from the above Q to the above G, or planting trees above, and the said judgment became final and conclusive (Tgu District Court 2014No4688). The aforementioned dispute was between the Defendant and the victim, and the Defendant’s right to use the farmland of this case was infringed upon, or was paid the Defendant’s right to use the farmland as the right to use the farmland.

Considering the fact that “the Defendant made a false statement,” the Defendant is entitled to use the farmland of this case for the victim.