The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the road of this case has been expanded without the valid permission of the landowner, it does not fall under the land and does not have a substantial difficulty in traffic due to the defendant's act.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court determined on the assertion of mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine as follows: (a) the road of this case was freely passed by the general public, including the residents of D village prior to its extension; (b) the Defendant had freely passed the road prior to its installation; and (c) the Defendant’s installation of pents decreased from 4.3m to 2.4m to 2.5m; and (d) the serious type of motor vehicle became unable to pass the road as a result of its failure, the lower court determined that the road of this case constitutes “land” as a public place where many and unspecified persons or motor vehicles and horses are allowed to freely pass through, and thus, the traffic of the above farmland was significantly difficult by installing a pents as above.

In light of the records, the above fact-finding and decision of the court below is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below, so the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. A favorable circumstance is that the Defendant’s decision on the assertion of unfair sentencing does not extend to the period for which the pentice was installed, and that the Defendant did not have any criminal record exceeding the fine.

However, the defendant's non-competence, and the defendant installed a pents around September 29, 2017 and removed the pents, and thereafter he again installed a pents to commit the crime of this case, and he is in the same kind of case.