In addition, since the defendant was unable to receive a refund of the deposit from the above lessor F, he merely occupied the above commercial building until the refund is made, it cannot be said that the defendant interfered with the business of the victim.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

2. According to the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, ① the lease contract for the instant commercial building between the Defendant and the lessor F was lawfully terminated on May 30, 2013; ② the Defendant, who entered into a new lease contract with the F and continued possession of the said commercial building, requested that the victim “to recover the goods of the Defendant and transfer the goods of the victim temporarily in order to restore them to their original state,” and ③ the same year.

6. 17. The fact that the victim has moved his/her own goods and separated them from air conditioners, etc. and signboards at the request of the defendant, and (4) The same year different from the defendant's promise.

6. From around October of the same year to around October of the same year (at the request of the victim, the date on which the lessor cancels the corrective device) the entrance of the commercial building of this case, set a strings and locks with locks, and ⑤ The same year from the victim substituted by the Defendant F.

6.5. It can be recognized that the remaining one million won of the lease deposit (the repayment of the deposit for lease shall be settled in relation to the defendant, F and the victim) received is returned, and the victim unilaterally returns the amount equivalent to the deposit for sub-lease to the victim regardless of the victim's refusal to do so.

. The above.