The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of one million won.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. The summary of the facts charged in this case is as follows: (a) from November 2018 to June 1, 2019, the Defendant installed 4 meters wide and 50 meters wide at a point of 1.8 meters road on the roads located in Gyeonggi-si B (hereinafter “instant road”); and (b) around June 1, 2019, the Defendant parked the front portion of the C vehicle (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) at the point of the sn beam beam, protruding the front portion of the instant vehicle on the road and parked it on the road to enter the construction site via the said road, and the victim E indictment and the judgment of the court below stated “D” but appears to be erroneous.

He interfered with the passage of his own car by force and at the same time interfered with the passage of the road.

2. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged and sentenced a fine of KRW 2 million to the Defendant.

3. Summary of grounds for appeal by the defendant;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles or misapprehending the legal principles, which found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged on the grounds of erroneous determination of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine.

1) Whether the Defendant installed four sn beam beam lines on the instant passage, or not, the instant passage route is a corporation I (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

(2) Whether the passage of this case constitutes “land” as referred to in Article 185 of the Criminal Act or “land (M)” as referred to in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, and the passage of this case does not constitute “land” as referred to in Article 185 of the Criminal Act, on the ground that the Defendant company did not waive his exclusive right to use and benefit from the passage of this case, the 3 households of the Defendant, K, and M, and the 50,000 households residing in the west by the passage of this case, and the 50,000 households residing in the west.

3. The defendant.