The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles does not constitute “land” under the Criminal Act on the roads where the Defendant interfered with traffic. 2) The Defendant’s pentice installation did not have any situation that the traffic was impossible or significantly difficult.

3) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in the instant case was erroneous in misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. On May 23, 2018, the Defendant: (a) around May 23, 2018, the Defendant was able to freely pass on a vehicle by installing a steel fence with a length of about 20 meters on the grounds that part of the farming paths used for the general public’s passage in the north-gu B, etc. at port is the land owned by himself/herself; and (b) the noise and vibration of women is generated.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the traffic of land, which is a place public for the traffic of the general public.

3. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of the following facts or circumstances. A.

In light of the developments leading up to the construction of the farm roads (hereinafter referred to as the “road of this case”) as indicated in the facts charged, and the fact that the road of this case is actually used as the passage of the surrounding people, it can be sufficiently recognized that the road of this case is the land.

B. ① Around 2014, the Defendant: (a) made clear the boundary of 621 square meters in Northern-gu B, Northern-gu, B (hereinafter, e.g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g., g. g.) and E school sites owned by the Office of Education; (b) removed the surface part of B’s land; and (c) installed debris on the part of the boundary; (c) installed at approximately 30 cm to E land above the original boundary; and (c) the Defendant further installed.