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 of special intimidation: Although the Defendant reported the scoofer who interrupted the land owned by the Defendant and resisted the article, there is no fact that the Defendant in question has maintained the improvement, which is a dangerous object, and has threatened the victim (E).

B. misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles as to general traffic obstruction: The instant road installed at will without the consent of the Defendant, a landowner, does not constitute the ground for interference with general traffic.

(c)

misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles on interference with the business: The defendant claimed against the victim (E) the delivery of the land including the road in this case and obtained a final and conclusive judgment in favor of him/her; and the victim did not give any particular response even if he/she sent a document verifying the contents; therefore, the victim obstructed the road by using a flusium flusium.

Even if it is a legitimate act which can be accepted in light of social norms, illegality is excluded.

(d)

Sentencing Sentencing: The punishment of the lower court (3 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. We examine ex officio prior to the judgment on the grounds for ex officio appeal.

Since the Defendant was born on December 7, 1942 and over 70 years of age from the time of institution of a public prosecution, this case constitutes a case requiring attorney-at-law pursuant to Articles 282 and 33(1)3 of the Criminal Procedure Act, the lower court, without appointing a defense counsel from the Defendant who was not a defense counsel, proceeded with and tried the trial. Thus, all the procedural acts conducted in the trial of the lower court are null and void.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is no longer maintained as the litigation procedure violates the law and affected the conclusion of the judgment.

However, as above, the defendant's assertion of mistake and misunderstanding of legal principles is still subject to the judgment of this court, and this is examined.

3. The judgment of the court on the assertion of mistake as to special intimidation has been duly adopted and investigated.