The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the land of this case is used temporarily for only some of unspecified persons, not for those who are, and only for some of, unspecified persons, so it cannot be deemed that the land of this case constitutes the land of interference with general traffic. The road designation announcement on the land of this case was made unlawfully, and it is improper to recognize the defendant as a interference with general traffic, since the land of this case could not be used as a road.

2. Summary of the facts charged in this case and the judgment of the court below

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant is the wife of G, the wife population D, E, and F land owners at the time of tolerance.

On December 28, 2005, he/she received a written consent to use access roads from the owner of the above land, and used part of the above land and H land as a road by publicly announcing the designation of 6m width of the road and 856m2 of the road area as a road and using it as a road for neighboring residents.

Nevertheless, on April 12, 2013, on the ground that part of the site of the above road is owned by the defendant, the defendant she accumulated a 5m wide, 2m vertical length, and 5m vertical length at the above road on April 18, 2013. On April 18, 2013, the above road was cut down with concrete in the original shape of 1m in diameter at the length of spoke, and on April 25, 2013, the above road obstructed the traffic of the above road by blocking it with a width of at least 1m, 10m wide, and a panel.

B. The court below held that the land of this case was used as a passage for the cultivation of nearby residents, and used as an access to agricultural machinery, such as a concrete packing work, in full view of the evidence presented in the judgment of the court below along with the public announcement of the designation of the road of this case and the preparation of a road ledger, the packing status of the land of this case, the progress of related litigation, etc., as well as the evidence, especially J, K, and L, and the fact that the land of this case was used as a passage for the cultivation of nearby residents. In particular, the land of this case is a public place with public nature such as neighboring residents, etc. where many unspecified people can freely