The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal by defense counsel;

A. In fact, the Defendant: (a) designed a bridge (hereinafter “instant bridge”) installed on the river in the Gyeonggi-gu Gyeonggi-gun D in 2006 at the maximum load of 25 tons; (b) the victim E and F used a large truck with a capacity of at least 38 tons to perform civil engineering works; (c) the instant bridge was at risk of collapse; (d) the Defendant installed a vehicle at the entrance of the instant bridge to prevent the collapse of a small truck or ordinary vehicle by blocking the passage of a large truck to the extent that it does not restrict the passage of the instant bridge.

In fact, as a result of a thorough safety inspection ordered and implemented by the Yangyang-gun Office, it is evaluated that the passage load of the instant bridge is less than four tons among the load load, and the number of Pyeongtaek-gun announced the instant bridge to prohibit the passage of vehicles with a total weight of at least four tons on September 29, 2014.

On the other hand, the Defendant did not demand usage fees of KRW 30 million on the condition that he consented to the use of the instant bridge or its access land, and rather, the Defendant would offer the Defendant KRW 30 million on May 2012 with the consent of the use of land upon acceptance of the consent of the Defendant around May 2012 prior to obtaining permission for development activities.

There is only a proposal.

In light of the above, even if the defendant did not have any intention to interfere with business, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact and finding the defendant guilty of the charges of this case.

B. In order to prevent the collapse of the instant bridge due to the passage of large trucks, the Defendant is set up a car at the entrance of the instant bridge, so the Defendant’s act constitutes an emergency escape or a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s allegation of illegality and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, thereby misapprehending the legal doctrine as to emergency evacuation or legitimate acts, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The sentencing of this case is unfair by the defendant.