The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. The farm road that the Defendant damaged the gist of the grounds for appeal is a road for the convenience of a specific person, not for a road which is used by many and unspecified persons as a passage, and thus cannot be deemed as a “land road” subject to general traffic obstruction.

Furthermore, since the above farm road was an uncertain road that can move from the original point of view, the defendant's narrow breadth of the road does not make traffic impossible or considerably difficult.

Since the defendant's act of restoration of land owned by others without permission, it constitutes a legitimate act that does not violate social rules, and the defendant did not have any awareness that traffic was obstructed at the time of the instant case.

Nevertheless, the court below found guilty of the facts charged of this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. On April 2013, the summary of the facts charged in the instant case, the Defendant: (a) considered that: (b) around May 2012, the Defendant cultivated the orchard located between C and D orchard (hereinafter “instant farm road”); (c) had extended the instant farm road to a width of 230cc; and (d) had extended the said farm road to a width of 230cc; and (c) had the Defendant’s previous boundary located adjacent to the farm road without permission; and (d) had the said farm road 90cc wide, the maximum width of width of 150cc long, and cut off the said farm road to the above farm road with a width of 51 meters.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with traffic so that agricultural machinery can not run on the upper side of the road.

3. Determination

A. As to the judgment of the court below, the court below stated that in order to enter the land owned by E and F as a contribution, the farming road of this case has no choice but to pass, and that the defendant also stated at an investigative agency that E could carry the horse from the above farming road even before the width of the farming road of this case was expanded, and that E permanently resides.