All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A (1) misunderstanding of facts) Defendant A (hereinafter “the access road of this case”) shall be the access road operated by the victim E (hereinafter “the access road of this case”).

(2) The Defendant asserts to the effect that the access road of this case does not constitute a general traffic obstruction, since the access road of this case is classified as “road”, it is not a road. However, it is recognized that the access road of this case is not a road, but a general traffic obstruction is not established.

3) The sentence imposed by the lower court on the grounds of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable. (b) Defendant B’s sentence (a fine of five hundred thousand won) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Defendant A’s assertion of mistake is acknowledged based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① Defendant A made a statement at the police that “I would not see that the contract with the complainant was null and void because all the complainants did not pay money to the complainants in the course of the lawsuit” (No. 39 pages of the investigation record). ② Defendant A set up on the access road of this case not only up soil but also up a large range of the part out of the access road of this case at approximately 1-2 meters (no. 31-34 pages of the investigation record), ③ Defendant A’s above assertion is without merit, taking into account the following circumstances: (a) Defendant A’s assertion that “I would not have any reason to follow the access road of this case, rather than a dry field,” and the right to the land traffic of this case is widely protected under Article 185 of the Criminal Act or the right to the land traffic of the general public.”