All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts only demanded the victim F to remove the soil from the outside to prevent illegal reclamation on the neighboring land in violation of the agreement that the victim F would have made it a mixture of illegal wastes to the outside, and there was no interference with the victim's work. Even if the defendants interfered with the victim's work, this constitutes legitimate self-defense or legitimate act to protect the infringement of the victim's right to passage and passage of village residents, the court below convicted the defendants of all the charges of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the facts, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The lower court’s sentencing (the Defendant: each fine of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the court below as a whole based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, namely, ① conversion of farmland into one residential area under the condition of payment of farmland preservation charges, and transfer of H and I land located on the NN land into the original residential area (No. 128 pages of investigation record), ② The roads claiming the passage of the defendants can not be recognized as roads on the ground of the river site (No. 71 page of investigation record), ③ the defendants appears to have been aware of the above circumstances through response to civil petitions, interviews with the public officials in charge, and mediation procedures (see, e.g., Articles 71, 130, 131, 136 of investigation record). ④ At the time, the defendants could not dispute the victim's progress in accordance with the procedures prescribed by the Act, but it cannot be said that the victim could not dispute the victim's progress in the village construction project over a very difficult place.