A. The Defendant was at the site as a project owner and did not remove the pents in collusion with the co-defendants of the lower court.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 1.5 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts. In other words, the defendant consistently acknowledged the facts of conspiracy at the prosecutor's investigation stage, like A, as the co-defendants of the court below's common interest, up to the court of the court below, and only the defendant appealed after the judgment of the court below was rendered and denied it at the court of the court below. However, there is no explanation to accept the reversal of the confession statement, and the defendant is deemed to have sufficient motive for the crime as a direct beneficiary of the benefits from interfering with the exercise of the right of retention of the apartment company D Co., Ltd. of this case., the defendant, as a direct beneficiary of the benefits from interfering with the exercise of the right of retention of the apartment company of this case, shall be sufficiently recognized.

The judgment of the court below that made the same conclusion is just, and there is no error of law by mistake of facts affecting the judgment.

The defendant's assertion of facts is without merit.

B. In addition to the fact that there is no particular measure to recover damage up to the trial in the judgment of the court below as to the unfair argument of sentencing, there is no change in circumstances that are disadvantageous to the defendant, such as the fact that the court below's joint defendant A was in excess of the responsibility, the fact that there is a number of records of punishment as a pro rata crime, etc., and that there is no change in circumstances that could reduce the punishment of the court below in the trial at the court below, and other various sentencing conditions as shown in the records and changes theory, such as the defendant's age, sex, environment, motive and background of the crime, means and consequence of the crime, etc., are considered, the court below's punishment is judged to be appropriate and is undue.