The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is innocent. The summary of this judgment shall be notified publicly.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The defendant's act of mistake of facts did not lead to the result of interference with traffic, and there was no intention to obstruct traffic.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact that the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

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

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. On November 5, 2017, the Defendant: (a) around 07:00 on the primary charge of the instant facts charged, around 100 meters in length located in Kimhae-si C (in the case of a certified copy of the cadastral map, it is marked as a road) where the Defendant’s female her female her female her mother owned; (b) obstructed the passage of a road with a width of about 1m in a steel-sloping bridge by blocking the passage of a road with a width of about 1m; and (c) obstructed the passage of a road to the public,

Accordingly, the Defendant interfered with traffic.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence in its judgment.

C. The purpose of the judgment of the appellate court is to punish all acts making it impossible or considerably difficult to pass through by destroying or infusing land, etc. or interfering with traffic by other means, which are crimes of which the legal interest is protected by the law of the general public's safety of traffic.

In light of the following circumstances, the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below and the result of on-site inspection by the appellate court, etc., it is insufficient to deem that the evidence submitted by the prosecutor alone was insufficient to deem that the traffic on the land was either impossible or substantially difficult due to the Defendant’s act, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Nevertheless, the court below erred in misunderstanding of facts as to finding guilty of the facts charged of this case.

1. In the case of a steel sloping bridge, the width of which is 40 cm, in light of the size, weight, shape, etc.