The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) is as follows: (a) the road in this case is owned by the defendant and not a road that public passage is conducted; (b) even though dump trucks in the liquor industry are sufficiently possible to pass through other roads than the road in this case, using the road in this case owned by the defendant without permission, to prevent the above passage as legitimate exercise of property rights; and (c) residents are allowed to pass through automobiles on daily basis with the remaining parts excluding the part where the defendant is set up with a dump dump and dump trucks in this case; and (d) the dump trucks in the Aju industry are allowed to pass through other roads, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant even though the defendant did not establish a crime of general traffic obstruction

2. The court below rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail under the title of “reason of guilt” in the judgment of the court below, on the ground that the Defendant alleged the same as above, and rejected the Defendant’s assertion in detail.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the instant road, etc. installed from around 2008 and appears to have been used by neighboring residents; ② the other roads asserted by the Defendant are used as an access road to dump trucks, and the width of which is about 4.1m, most can only pass through a single dump truck, and it does not have to be sufficiently dump truck, etc. only on the instant road, because it does not have a large degree of 10 meters away from the river side of the lower court’s reasoning; ③ the Defendant is fully able to exercise its ownership to the instant road through a separate lawful remedy procedure.