The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Recognizing the misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles that the Defendant removed cement packaging of the instant road and set up a steel pole on both sides of the road and slicks between them. However, the instant road is a dead-end road on the upper side of the road, inasmuch as there is no person using it other than D, it is not a length provided for general traffic.

In addition, since the defendant displayed the contact point of the defendant on the 쇠s installed on the road of this case so that the person wishing to contact and pass through the defendant, it is difficult to see that the defendant interfered with the passage.

In addition, the road part of this case was owned by the defendant, and it was not intended to interfere with general traffic because it was arbitrarily removed the road package in both districts and districts as part of the exercise of property rights.

Therefore, the defendant's act does not constitute general traffic obstruction.

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

2. Determination

A. As to the assertion of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the lower court also rejected the Defendant’s assertion of the same purport, on the grounds that the evidence duly admitted and investigated was comprehensively taken into account, and found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged, and on the other hand, rejected the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion on the grounds of detailed reasons

Examining the above fact-finding and judgment by comparing them with the records, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts or by misunderstanding the legal principles, which affected the conclusion

B. There are extenuating circumstances for the Defendant’s assertion of unfair sentencing, including the removal of hacks put on steel columns after the instant case, and the Defendant is a disabled person of the fourth degree with delay disability. However, each of the instant cases on the other hand.