The judgment of the court below is reversed.

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

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles) corresponds to the passage of the general public, and the passage of the instant case constitutes the passage of the general public, and as a result, the passage of the instant case constitutes the passage of the general public, and the Defendant set up Pokes, etc. and placed them in the middle of the passage, thereby significantly obstructing passage according to the existing passage method.

A. The lower court’s determination 1) Whether the portion of the Defendant’s land B (hereinafter “instant land”) owned by the Defendant’s wife F constituted the only passage (hereinafter “instant passage”) leading to the Defendant’s contribution from D’s land (title G, hereinafter “in the name of the complainant”) to the public; ② The portion of the instant passage constitutes a part of the road in the form of a long-term road through which the passage of small-scale horse, such as a horse-chill, is available for passage; ③ the general public can access to the land or neighboring dry field, forest, etc. using the instant passage; and the passage portion constitutes the land passage of the instant land, in fact, through the passage of the general public.

2) Whether there was a danger of interference with general traffic, ① from around 2012, the passage of the instant case was made by the Defendant in the form of the current passage from around 2015, and the passage of the instant road was made by the Defendant from around 2012 to around 2015, ② the land of the complainant and the lower forest behind the land does not live; ③ the complainant installed a hacks to prevent vehicle access at the boundary of the land between the instant land and the accusers, or did not maintain the adequate width to prevent the vehicle access; ④ the passage of the instant land seems not frequent; ④ the passage of the instant case seems to have reached an unspecified number of traffics, ⑤ the Defendant’s act is difficult to be deemed to have reached the extent that it significantly difficult to pass according to the existing passage method.