The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. 1) Fact-finding 1) The access road of this case, as indicated in the judgment of the court below, is a temporary access road which the complainant used for the restoration to the original state of the land where it is illegally damaged, not a road provided for the general public for the passage of the general public.

Since the defendant's housing adjoining to the access road of this case is likely to be submerged into the rainy rail, the defendant only restored the access road of this case to the original state through ditches, and did not have intention to interfere with general traffic.

2) The drainage pipe that the Defendant damaged the damage of property does not constitute a property subject to the damage of property, since there is no value of the property as a multiple pipe.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion of mistake of fact 1) The term “land access” in the context of interference with general traffic traffic interference refers to the land passage through which general public or vehicles can freely pass, and it does not include ownership relation, traffic relation, traffic relation, or heavy and redness of traffic users.

The following facts and circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the court below, i.e., the access road of this case was originally ditches. However, as the existing condition of this case became unusable due to the underground passage of UV, etc., the complainant created the access road of this case that can circumvent the existing status by covering the part of the ditch after obtaining approval from the military office to the use of the ditch. The access road of this case was used for the traffic of vehicles for the restoration of illegal destruction and loss by the complainant. The existing status of the access road is the road used by the complainant, as well as for the passage of vehicles for the restoration of illegal destruction and loss by the complainant, etc., the access road of this case is the road used by the complainant, and the person using the existing status of this case did not have to use the access road of this case because there were no other existing status substitution or bypass except for the access road of this case.