The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The road located in Gwangju-si, Gwangju-si (hereinafter “instant road”) does not correspond to “land access” for interference with general traffic, and even after the pents (hereinafter “instant pents”) were installed on the instant road, since people using the instant road can enter C, D, etc. through E’s owned warehouse, it cannot be said that the Defendant interfered with traffic by land.

Unlike this, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in misconception of facts.

B. Legal principles 1) Since land users could pass through the land owned by E even after installing the instant pen, there is no intention to interfere with ordinary traffic. 2) The Defendant’s act of installing the instant pen constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules.

3. Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted the charged facts of this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principle.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to whether the road of this case constitutes the land of interference with general traffic) The lower court acknowledged that one passage way was installed on each of the above roads B, J roads, and K factory sites owned by the Defendant. However, the Defendant, among the roads of this case, installed the instant gate on the ground B, and E, E, G, and F are farmland and L, and H factories workers and H customers, including I, used the road of this case to enter, respectively, H factories in the above C, and those wishing to enter the forest adjacent to the road of this case were also passing through the road of this case. The lower court determined that the road of this case was an object of interference with general traffic, which is the land actually being used for the general public.