A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the Defendant, as the site warden of the construction site, sent a letter of demand for the removal of containers to the victim, but there is no direct order for container movement work.

However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the crime of interference with business or by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the crime of interference with business, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (the penalty amount of KRW 700,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances are revealed in the lower court’s determination as to the assertion of misunderstanding the facts and legal principles. ① The victim was awarded a subcontract for the construction of soil and stone facilities from among the new apartment construction construction project by the Corporation in the Seoul apartment construction project, but the victim was unable to receive construction payment from the Corporation in November 201, 2013, and exercised the lien by occupying a container for business owned by the victim (hereinafter “instant container”) installed at the construction site from the Corporation in the Corporation. ② The defendant sent a public notice to the victim to move the instant container several times on the ground of confusion at the construction site as the site warden of the Corporation in the Construction Bank Co., Ltd., and ③ the defendant sent the container to the victim on several occasions on the grounds of the occurrence of confusion at the construction site. ③ The defendant did not know that the victim had removed the container to the victim and sent several documents and sent contact with the victim on several occasions, but the supervisor at the construction site was unable to obtain permission from the victim.

In full view of the fact that the Defendant voluntarily removed one container of this case possessed by the injured party without any justifiable reason and interfered with the injured party’s exercise of the right of retention.

Therefore, it is proper that the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case, and it is alleged in the grounds of appeal.