The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding, misunderstanding of legal principles, the Defendant made bypass a bypass, and thus, it does not constitute a general traffic obstruction because a concrete road with approximately 50 meters in length and approximately 2 meters in width (hereinafter “road in this case”) in F, the Defendant did not constitute an exclusive road, and even though the Defendant did not have a criminal intent to obstruct general traffic, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine and misapprehending the legal doctrine.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant.

According to the records, the Defendant was sentenced to ten months of imprisonment for fraud at the Gwangju District Court on February 16, 2017, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on April 25, 2017. As such, in relation to fraud for which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of interference with general traffic in the holding of the lower court, a punishment shall be determined after considering the case and equity under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act as well as the mitigation or exemption of punishment, inasmuch as the crime of fraud for which judgment became final and conclusive and the crime of interference with general traffic in the holding of the lower court is in a concurrent criminal relationship after Article 37 of

The Defendant’s misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine are still subject to the judgment of this court, even if there is a ground for ex officio reversal.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the Defendant’s mistake of facts, etc.: (i) the road of this case is the current status of the building constructed in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun; (ii) the access road of the Dong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, determined that the road of this case and the current status were consistent with the road of this case, and dealt with the building report; and (iii) the Defendant was unable to enter a large vehicle by installing a bypass.

statement and set up by the defendant.