A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant occupied the victim’s house at the time of exercising the right of retention against the victim’s construction price claim against the victim, and thus, it does not interfere with the victim’s business.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (an amount of KRW 500,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In fact-misunderstanding and legal principles, the right of retention alleged in the misapprehension of the legal principles is extinguished due to the loss of possession (see Article 328 of the Civil Act), and if the possession was caused by a tort, the right of retention is not established (see Article 320(2) of the Civil Act). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant completed the construction before the crime in this case was committed, and accepted from the victim’s house. The defendant, as at the time of the crime in this case, two persons who installed electricity within the victim’s house at the time of the crime in this case were released out of the victim’s house, and the entrance was removed from the entrance, and then the entrance’s hand was removed, and the entrance was replaced on

"The fact that a banner is installed may be recognized respectively."

Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Defendant’s lien was extinguished as long as the Defendant was removed from the construction site and lost possession thereof, and thereafter, the Defendant’s lien was discharged from the victim’s house and occupied the victim’s house.

As can not be seen, this right of retention cannot be deemed to be established again, and the defendant's act of arbitrarily occupying the construction site without seeking relief by lawful means, such as filing a lawsuit for claiming construction price, and such act cannot be deemed as a justifiable act under Article 20 of the Criminal Act, because it lacks reasonableness of means and methods.

Therefore, the lower court’s decision that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable, and it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine.