A. On June 11, 2014, the Defendant was not able to interfere with the victim’s interior works, on the ground that the artificial insemination contract was not concluded on the building I located in the Gongju-si (hereinafter “instant building”). As such, the Defendant could not interfere with the victim’s interior works.

2) The Defendant did not know the fact that he renounced the right of retention on the instant building, and thus did not have any intention to obstruct the Defendant’s business.

3) The Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act that was committed to maintain possession while there is a dispute over the existence of a right of retention with the victim.

B. The sentence of the lower court that is unfair in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On June 11, 2014, the lower court determined that the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and legal doctrine as follows; (i) the Defendant already lost possession of the remainder other than the part of 301 and 302 of the above building and lost its right of retention; but (ii) installed a container on the land of the above building beyond the part of 301, 302, which would have been assumed to have been directly occupied by the Defendant at the time, and installed a chain at the entrance of the said building; and (iii) at the time, the Defendant cannot be deemed to constitute a justifiable act; and (iv) at the time, the Defendant was unable to preserve the claim by the statutory procedure against the entire building beyond the above 301 and 302.

The state of urgency was in an urgent situation.

It cannot be seen, and 3. It is reasonable to judge that the instant crime was actually committed by the Defendant, and found the Defendant guilty of the instant charges.

2) In light of the above legal doctrine as seen above, the lower court and the first instance court duly adopted and examined the aforementioned circumstances.