A. On July 7, 2016, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s work by the foregoing method from around July 18, 2016 to around July 18, 2016, by: (b) around 10:00, at D construction sites managed by the victim C around Asan-si, Asan-si; (c) through which a shot dog is mobilized to prevent security guards from entering the entrance; and (d) preventing the victim and his employees from entering the entrance.

B. On July 13, 2016, around 17:30 on July 13, 2016, the Defendant: (a) set up a motor vehicle from which the Defendant’s spouse’s spouse’s hurf at the above place in front of the entrance of the construction site; (b) opened a sturging dog with a sturging dog, and prevented the victim and his employees from entering the site by spreading the entrance by blocking the security guards from entering the entrance.

2. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant: (a) ordered construction works from E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”); and (b) exercised the pertinent construction cost claim and lien from F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F”); (c) G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”); and (d) Korea Survey Design Corporation (hereinafter “Korea Survey”); and (c) exercised the relevant construction cost claim and lien.

Therefore, since the defendant's act properly exercises the right of retention, it cannot be viewed as illegal.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence of judgment, the documents alone submitted by the prosecutor alone that the defendant does not have a right of retention, or that the defendant's act deviates from the scope of the legitimate right of retention without reasonable doubt:

It is insufficient to view.

A. E was awarded a contract for construction work in F, G, and Korea survey, and the said companies seem to have held the claim for construction cost and the right of retention on the E side (see, e.g., evidence records less than 116 pages and the statements of H, I, and J).