The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

(a) In fact-misunderstanding ① With respect to the point of interference with general traffic, the way of the Defendant’s blocking is not the original road.

In addition, because there is an oil tank in underground and there is a concern that the defendant might destroy a heavy vehicle, it is a legitimate act.

(2) In relation to the obstruction of business, the defendant does not have the same act as the facts charged.

B. The punishment of the lower judgment that was unfair in sentencing (an amount of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the assertion of mistake of facts is based on the assertion that a traffic obstruction in general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is not a road, and the purpose of which is to punish any act that makes it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by causing damage to or infusing the road or interfering with traffic by other means (see Supreme Court Decision 95Do1475 delivered on September 15, 1995, etc.). Here, the term “land” refers to a place of public traffic, that is, a place of public traffic, that is, a place of public character in which many and unspecified persons or horses are allowed to freely pass through, and so long as it is recognized as land, it refers to a place of public traffic obstruction, that is, a place of public nature in which many and unspecified persons or horses are not limited to a specific person, and so long as it is recognized as land, the lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion to the same purport as the facts charged.

According to the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, according to witness F and G of the court below's witness F and G, the existing vehicle, etc. entered the "E-gate" using the relevant site, and the right road is not left.