The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The court below found the defendant guilty on the ground that the act of installing the fence of this case by the defendant cannot be deemed to have made many and unspecified persons, motor vehicles, and horses unusable or significantly obstructed, and there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the defendant (two million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court, based on the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, found the following facts as to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, i.e., a dry field side of dry field C, the Defendant-owned, access to E’s house and F’s house, and it was offered to residents’ passage for several hundred and fifty (10) years as the only passage of the said third-party household located in D’s house. The Defendant, as a result of the first patrol survey on November 201, 2012, installed a fence to restrict the passage of the said part of the said road on the ground that it was confirmed that part of the said road was owned by the Defendant, on the ground that approximately fifty (50) meters in length, approximately one point five (1.5) meters in height, and that the said road was installed on the front of the lower court’s wall and that it was impossible for the Defendant to pass a vehicle other than the said road on the front of the lower court.

In full view of all the facts charged, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's act of causing the passage of vehicles available for passage in the previous time constitutes a crime of interference with general traffic by installing a wall on the road of this case and significantly restricting the width of the road. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

(b).