A. The misapprehension of the legal principle caused serious problems in the preservation and management of the building due to the failure to manage the building of this case and the defects in the construction of the building of this case. Accordingly, the defendant's act is a justifiable act that does not go against the social rules and constitutes an emergency evacuation.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of legal principles 1) Facts or circumstances that can be acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court, namely, ① the victim and the Defendant Company entered into a contract with the view to occupying the instant building on April 15, 2013, setting the cost of construction KRW 275,00,00 (e.g., KRW 321,530,000; the victim had performed the said construction since that time; ② the victim had exercised the right of retention as stated in the facts charged in the instant case from August 2013 with the remainder of construction cost, excluding KRW 38,50,000,000, which was already paid out of the construction cost, as the preserved claim; ③ the Defendant’s exercise the right of retention from November 5, 2013 with the commencement of the instant building after the opening of the building; ⑤ the Defendant’s possession of the victim’s building and infringement of the Defendant’s right to retention or management of the instant building; and ⑤ there is also doubt as to whether the Defendant had been exercising the right to retention or management of the instant building.