The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. When determining the ownership of neighboring land, etc., the Gyeonggi-gun B land that the Defendant acquired by mistake of facts (hereinafter “instant land”); however, it is unclear as to which part of the instant land was used as land, and the land owner lost its function as land after the owner of the instant land began to receive the usage fee.

In addition, the use of FF roads owned by the state is a bypass way that can approach Gpenta and Kpenta, etc.

Ultimately, the defendant's land owned by the defendant is not the land of the general traffic obstruction.

B. In light of the fact that the former owner of the instant land purchased by the Defendant in unreasonable sentencing was paid the price for the use of the said land, access to the pension operated by the complainants on the road owned by the State, and the vehicle can reach the pension operated by the complainants in cases of moving some things placed on the road and moving landscaping and landscape trees, and the fact that the instant land owned by the Defendant is scheduled to be expropriated as a road, the sentencing of the lower court (fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination on the grounds for appeal

A. In light of the following facts and legal principles acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant, as stated in the facts charged, deemed as obstructing the Defendant’s passage of the general public by using the pents to the land B, which is the land used by the general public for accommodation of pents, as stated in the facts charged.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

(1) The meaning of “land access” in general traffic obstruction and relevant legal principles (A) the general traffic obstruction under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to the general public’s traffic safety.