The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Since the misapprehension of legal principles and the defendant did not know that the installation of a standing signboard on the road is prohibited, illegality is excluded as a mistake in law (related to Article 1 of the original judgment). In addition, since it cannot be deemed that the defendant interfered with or interfered with traffic due to the simplified intrusion with the cargo parked by the defendant, it does not constitute a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act and a crime of violation of the Road Act (related to Article 2 of the original judgment).

The punishment (fine 2 million won) sentenced by the court below on unreasonable sentencing is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected Defendant’s assertion of illegality on the ground that it is difficult to see that Defendant’s act of installing a standing signboard on the road was not a crime under statutes, on the following grounds: (a) the receipt of a report by 112 times more than 10 times due to Defendant’s act of installing the Defendant’s standing signboard; (b) the police was called out on January 9, 2019; (c) the police was moving and removing the standing signboard on several occasions on January 11, 2019; and (d) the public official in charge of the Gu office removed the standing signboard on January 23, 2019; and (e) the public official in charge of the Gu office removed the standing signboard on January 28 and 29, 2019.

Even after examining the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, it is just to determine that the court below did not have any justifiable ground to believe that the defendant's act of installing his standing signboards based on the above fact-finding is not a crime, and there is no violation of law as argued by the defendant

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of legal principles is not accepted.

B. The judgment of the court below on the assertion of mistake of facts (related to Article 2 of the judgment of the court below) accepted the report of 112 that the defendant obstructed most of the roads by blocking the cargo cars and simplified intrusion of the defendant, and that the defendant prevents the passage of the cargo lanes.