The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since an access road cut by the Defendant has a high gradient, it was impossible for the Defendant to enter the construction from the beginning to the beginning, and there was no difficulty in the construction to proceed with the construction even when the access road was cut. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the construction work of this case was obstructed due to the Defendant’s cutting of the ground.

B. Although the Defendant’s parking act could interfere with the superior connection construction during the instant construction, the victim unilaterally proceeded with the connection construction on the Defendant’s land without consultation with the Defendant, and the Defendant was inevitably parked in the vehicle to restrain the said construction, which constitutes a justifiable act.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court rendered a guilty judgment on the facts charged of this case. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the Defendant’s assertion on interference with the work due to cutting of the ground, it is recognized that the Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s work of the instant construction by cutting the access road to the land owned by the victim, as stated in the facts charged in

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

1) The victim was performing a construction project to build a new house on the land of Gyeonggi-do and J land, respectively (hereinafter “instant construction project”). However, the construction project, which was underway on the ground of the said D land, is deemed the “instant construction project.”

(2) On the other hand, there is no access road to the site of the instant construction in addition to the passage of the access road installed by the victim, the access road to the instant construction site (Evidence No. 30,32 pages). (2) Examining the photographs of the site of the instant construction, the part of the access road to which the said access road was cut is cut, constituting a partition wall, and the front is.