The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Although the Defendant did not have any intention to obstruct traffic, and the Defendant’s act does not constitute traffic obstruction, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged in the instant case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court of the court below after explaining the legal principles as stated in its holding, the court below determined that the Defendant’s act of blocking the passage of the general public by installing a hack fact linking both edges of the instant land and constitutes an act of interference with traffic, and that the Defendant’s agreement or ownership relation with the villagers does not affect the establishment of traffic obstruction, and that the Defendant’s purpose of installing a hacks is to prevent the passage through the instant land, and thus, it also recognized the intent of traffic obstruction.

In light of the records, the above facts finding and judgment of the court below are just and correct, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts as alleged by the defendant in the judgment below, and the above assertion by the defendant is without merit.

B. It is recognized that the Defendant’s judgment on the unfair argument of sentencing is an initial criminal without any criminal history, and the Defendant’s period of criminal act is not long.

However, considering the fact that the nature of the instant crime is not good, that many people complained of inconvenience due to the instant crime, and the conditions of sentencing as shown in the instant pleadings, such as the Defendant’s age, sex and environment, motive, means and consequence of the instant crime, etc., the lower court’s punishment is too unreasonable.