The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The site of the road of this case where a mistake of facts Defendant installed a gate to prevent traffic is owned by the Defendant, and since persons other than D are not using the road of this case as a passage, it cannot be deemed that it constitutes the land of obstruction of general traffic.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The court below duly adopted and examined the assertion of mistake of facts as follows: ① The house of the defendant was located on the ground of the YE, the house of the defendant was located on the ground of the E, adjacent to the house of the defendant; ④ the unspecified number of people visiting D's house was allowed to enter the road of this case before the defendant's house; ② D and their families have passed through the road of this case for over 50 years, and the defendant passed through the road of this case after 1992, and even after 1992, the defendant purchased the house, and ③ the defendant was paid the use fee from D from April 207, 207, asserting that the road of this case was his own land. Since D used the road of this case to prevent the road of this case around July 27, 2014, ④ the road of this case was constructed on the road of this case, ④ the land owned by the defendant's general road of this case and the land of this case can not be recognized.

B. As to the assertion on unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s land is also included in the instant road, such as that D and his family members have used the road for the purpose of entering the house and installing gate, prohibiting entry, and not restoring to the original state before purchasing his house.