The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the facts charged is the owner of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Forest Land B (hereinafter “instant land”).

On April 19, 2016, the Defendant: (a) around 19, 2016, among roads with a large volume of 3 meters wide used by local residents for traffic, the Defendant prevented vehicles from driving along the land by inserting 2 posts with a diameter of 65cm and diameter of 15cm in the land at intervals of 7 meters.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with traffic by making the land on the land, which is a fluent for the general public's traffic.

2. Progress of the case

A. The owner D of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 132 square meters adjacent to the instant land was performing a housing construction work on the land owned by him, and the Defendant installed strings as indicated in the facts charged in the instant land and made it difficult to pass the construction vehicle and filed a complaint with the Eunpyeong Police Station on August 18, 2016 on the charge of general traffic obstruction.

B. On October 31, 2016, the Seoul Western District Public Prosecutor's Office recognized the fact that the land price of the instant case was being used as the current state on the instant case, but the appeal was filed by D, but the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the appeal on January 20, 2017. The Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the appeal on January 20, 2017. While D filed an application for adjudication with the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office on July 725, 2017, the Seoul High Public Prosecutor's Office dismissed the application for adjudication on May 8, 2017 (hereinafter "decision to dismiss the application for adjudication on the first public Prosecutor's complaint"). The above decision became final and conclusive around that time.

(c)

Before the filing of the complaint, one Part D filed a claim against the defendant against the Seoul Western District Court for the confirmation of the right to passage over the surrounding land and the disposition of the right to obstruct passage, etc., and in collusion with the E in order to reflect the defendant's assertion that access to the land of Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, owned by the complainant of this case, can be made by using the land of Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul.