The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (in fact-finding) was a number of disputes between the Defendant and D, which led to conflicts, and the Defendant was issued a summary order for committing the crime that the Defendant interfered with the passage of the road leading to D's penture even before, and that the Defendant did not move the vehicle for five hours even after being requested by D to move the vehicle at the time of the instant crime, and that D made a statement favorable to the Defendant in the court of the original instance, but this is likely to cause perjury. In light of the fact that D made a statement favorable to the Defendant in the investigative agency at the time of the instant crime, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant was guilty on the charge of interfering with the passage of the road of this case at the time of the instant crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and by misapprehending the fact that the Defendant

2. Determination

A. On November 6, 2012, the Defendant, at around 10:40, obstructed the passage of roads provided to the general public by setting up a F Kanchep van and G Karen van at the entrance of the above pentionion road, which is operated by D in Chuncheon-si, Chuncheon-si, with a view to making it impossible for the Defendant to pass through the roads leading to D’s pension.

B. The lower court determined that the instant road where a carn van and a carren van were parked is about five meters wide, and at the time, the carn van was parked near the road to the port, and the carren van was parked near the road to the right side. However, upon receiving a claim from D to move the vehicle, H, an employee of the E-pent, moved the carren van (to the son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's son's