A. misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant had the right of retention in a way that the Defendant would have received construction cost from the injured party, and that the said claim for the construction cost was a secured bond and was installed at a new construction site as stated in the lower judgment.

The above act of the defendant constitutes a justifiable act, and thus, illegality is excluded.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s improper sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Determination of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is that possession of a judgment on the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine is a requirement to maintain the interest required to establish a lien, and thus, the lien holder shall continue to possess the subject matter of the lien at the time of establishment as well as during existence, and if he/she loses such possession, the lien ceases to exist (see Articles 320 and 328 of the Civil Act). The defendant had a direct claim on the date stated in the facts constituting a crime

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the trial court, namely, the Defendant left the construction site at the site from April 2017 to June 201, and went away from the construction site at the construction site at the time of the instant case. As a result, the Defendant lost possession of the construction site at the construction site at the instant construction site after approximately one month, and the Defendant had a legitimate lien on the construction site at the instant construction site at the time of the instant case.

It is difficult to see it.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

B. Improper interference with the instant sentencing was an act for the Defendant to receive the construction cost, and the Defendant has a favorable condition for the Defendant, such as having no record of crime except the record of punishment once a punishment of a dual-type fine, around 193.

However, this case is a construction site of this case by force without following legitimate procedures under the pretext of exercising the right of retention by the defendant.