Defendants are not guilty.

A. In fact, misunderstanding of the legal principles and the fact that the vinyl leased by the Defendants to the victim was completely cut off and the purpose of the lease was not achieved, and the lease contract was terminated as a matter of course. However, even if the vinyl was not so, the agreement was terminated, such as negotiation on the purchase of the site after the collapse of the plastic house, and thus, the victim’s right to lease was extinguished at the time of the removal of the

Therefore, even though the defendants' act of removing a vinyl does not constitute a obstruction of exercising their rights, the court below found the defendants guilty of the facts charged in this case. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. The sentencing of the lower court is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged of the instant case is that Defendant A owned the vinyl located in B, and Defendant B owned the vinyl located in E adjacent thereto (hereinafter “the instant vinyl”). around October 1, 2013, the Defendants leased the instant vinyl to the Victim F, with a fixed annual rent of KRW 3.5 million and three years for the original purpose of raising the instant vinyl to the victim F, respectively, on or around January 1, 2016, Defendant A sold the said vinyl to another person with the intention to remove the said vinyl while selling the said land, in collusion, with the intent to remove the said vinyl at the time of having it difficult to manage the said said said vinyl, while having the said vinyl removed the said vinyl without the victim’s consent, even though the term of lease on the said vinyl remains.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the adopted evidence.

(c)

The following circumstances, i.e., the victim, which were duly adopted and investigated by the court below, are acknowledged as a whole.