The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The passage of the instant case of mistake of facts is not the land referred to in general traffic obstruction.

B. In light of the legal principles, the passage of the passage of this case without the consent of the defendant for the convenience of their passage is an infringement of the defendant's property right, and the defendant's behavior constitutes self-defense to protect his property right.

C. The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds that the sentencing of an unreasonable sentencing (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) As to the assertion of mistake of facts, the crime of interference with general traffic under Article 185 of the Criminal Act is a crime that is protected by the legal interest of the general traffic safety of the general public. Here, the term “land” refers to a place of public nature where many and unspecified people, vehicles, and horses are allowed to freely pass through without limit to a specific person. As long as it is recognized as land, the ownership of the site, traffic right, or traffic right relation, or heavy and timely drinking materials do not occur (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Do6903, Apr. 26, 2002). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is reasonable to view the road of this case as being used by farmers who live in neighboring houses, H and I, as well as nearby farmland, and at least 10 years ago, the road of this case is a place with public character where many and unspecified people, vehicles, and horses are allowed to pass freely.