All judgment of the court below shall be reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall be imposed on the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The road of this case (hereinafter “the road of this case”) is a road owned by the Defendant, but is used as a road without permission, and is limited to the passage to which ownership is guaranteed.

Therefore, the defendant's act is a legitimate act that does not go against social norms.

B. A special crime of intimidation (misunderstanding of facts) was committed by the Defendant only by a person who has an friendly improvement at the time of this case and did not pose a threat to the victim’s improvement.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by the defendant's ex officio, the defendant appealed against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2. This court decided to hold two appeals jointly. Each of the crimes in the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2 against the defendant should be sentenced to a single sentence in accordance with Article 38 (1) of the Criminal Act in relation to concurrent crimes under the former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act. Thus, the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained as it is.

However, the defendant's assertion of misunderstanding of legal principles and misunderstanding of facts is still subject to determination.

3. Determination

A. 1) The lower court determined as to the interference with general traffic in order to constitute “act contrary to the social rules” under Article 20 of the Criminal Act: ① the motive of the act, legitimacy of the purpose, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, protection of the legal interest, balance between the legal interest and the legal interest in the invasion of the law, urgency, and supplementary nature that does not have any means or method other than the act (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Do8530, Feb. 25, 2005, etc.); ② the term “land” under Article 185 of the Criminal Act refers to the wide range of the passage of the land, which is actually a common use for the traffic of the general public, and thus, the ownership of the Defendant’s act is not limited to ownership (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Do717, Dec. 28, 2007).