All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant A did not have any public traffic interference due to bean, etc. Defendant A had no intention to violate the Rearrangement of Agricultural and Fishing Villages Act, since Defendant A thought that he had possession right on each land of this case (hereinafter “each land of this case”) had been occupied by the former Soyang-gun C and D (hereinafter “each land of this case”).

3) The Defendants did not have expressed desire to the victim H, and even if Defendant A said the victim “this is a justifiable act that does not go against social norms. B. The lower court’s sentence of unfair sentencing (Defendant A: a fine of KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000 won, and fine of KRW 300,000,000,000,000,000

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion that the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act does not interfere with the general traffic safety of the general public. The phrase "land passage" refers to a crime of protecting the legal interest of traffic safety of the general public. It refers to the wide range of the land passage used for the passage of the general public, and the ownership relation of the site or the traffic right of the passage or the large number of the passers and studs, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). Therefore, even if the land passes through which there are no other users than two households, it constitutes the land stipulated in the general traffic obstruction (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Do8750, Feb. 22, 2007). In other words, the lower court did not appear to have lawfully adopted the following circumstances, namely, that it did not interfere with the passage of the above land on the road, and the testimony was made by the Defendant 1, 2007.