폭력행위등처벌에관한법률위반(공동재물손괴등)등
All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)
A. The Defendants alleged that all of the facts charged of this case were entitled to a legitimate lien by D (Representative Administrator: G) and the above act constitutes a legitimate act, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty.
B. Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant B’s assertion as to the damage of property was about the pents installed around the building. However, there was no fact that the Defendants sent to the floor, and the floor and fences in the construction site are scheduled to be removed or revised upon completion of the construction. As such, the crime of property damage cannot be deemed established only by a licking project.
2. Determination
A. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to whether the Defendants’ act constitutes a legitimate exercise of the right of retention, the Defendants may recognize the fact that the Defendants were employed by G, a representative manager of D (hereinafter “instant company”) and was in charge of affairs related to the right of retention on the structure owned by the victim (hereinafter “the instant structure”). While the instant company asserted the right of retention on the instant structure and temporarily occupied the said structure, it repeated the Defendant’s act of restoring or losing possession for a long time, such as the Defendant’s deprivation of possession by the victim and leaving from the said structure. However, the Defendants again lost possession on or around November 201, 2014, and the Defendants lost possession on the day of the instant case, by preventing the construction of the victim’s work conducted within the instant structure under the direction of G on March 24, 2015, and by committing each act described in the facts charged for the purpose of occupying the site.
On the other hand, the following circumstances, which are known by each of the above evidence, are ① the right of retention.