All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Criminal facts No. 1.C. as stated in the judgment of the court below, which are erroneous.

The remainder of the part, other than the paragraph, is loaded or installed on a road, such as bricks, steel pipe, concrete structure, etc. to carry out drainage maintenance works using a holiday, so there was no traffic obstruction, and there was no traffic obstruction, and there was no traffic obstruction.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below that recognized this part of the general traffic obstruction is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (one year of imprisonment with prison labor for each of six months and one year of suspended execution) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the misunderstanding of facts, the Defendants argued to the same effect as this part of the judgment of the court below, and the court below, within the scope of the summary of the evidence of the court below, had the intent of obstructing the traffic on the road to the Defendants, by explaining detailed reasons as to this part of the evidence.

Since the Defendants appear to be aware of the intent of the crime of interference with general traffic and the fact that the crime of interference with general traffic was made bypass was not impeded the establishment of the crime of interference with general traffic.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records closely, the above determination by the court below is just and there is a mistake of fact as alleged by the defendants.

It is difficult to see it.

The Defendants’ assertion of factual mistake is without merit.

B. Under our criminal litigation law, which takes the trial-oriented principle and the direct principle as to the unfair argument of sentencing, there exists no change in the conditions of sentencing compared to the first instance court in relation to the determination of sentencing, and where the first instance court’s sentencing does not deviate from the reasonable scope of discretion, it is reasonable to respect it (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Do3260 Decided July 23, 2015). In this case, as there is no particular change in the sentencing conditions compared to the lower court, the details and contents of each general traffic obstruction.