The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The access road to the road indicated in the facts charged of mistake of facts in the instant case (hereinafter “instant road”) is not a road through which vehicles, etc. pass, and there is no fact that the Defendant interfered with the passage of the instant road by placing stones and trees on the instant road, as shown in the instant facts charged.

Nevertheless, the court below convicted the defendant of the facts charged in this case. The judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. The sentence (one million won of fine) imposed by the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. Whether the road of this case constitutes a road protected by general traffic obstruction is an offense, the legal interest of which is protected by the law, and its purpose is to punish all acts of causing damage to or interference with traffic by land, etc., or significantly obstructing traffic by other means. Here, the term "landway" refers to the wide passage of land actually being used for the traffic of the general public. It does not include ownership relation of the site, traffic right relation, or heavy and redness of traffic users (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7545, Oct. 28, 2005). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, in light of the legal principles seen earlier, it is reasonable to view the road of this case as a packaged road, which has been used as a village access road prior to this case, and its width is to be seen as a obstruction of traffic by general public.

B. The contents of the judgment of the court of first instance and the judgment of the court of first instance in relation to the determination of whether the defendant interfered with the act of obstruction, the trial-oriented principle, and the direct examination principle.