2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court’s judgment and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the first instance court, namely, ① it is difficult to view the Defendants as having the secured claim against the lien, and ② the Defendants continuously occupied the building and the site of this case from around 1996 to the time of the instant case.

It is difficult to view that a decision to commence an auction was made and the possession that was transferred after the seizure took effect cannot be asserted against the victim because it goes against the prohibition of the disposition of seizure. ③ The victim, etc. filed a lawsuit against the Defendants for a request for extradition of the building of this case and the land that is the site thereof under the Daejeon District Court Decision 2014 Gohap 101579. The above court recognized the victim’s claim on September 26, 2014 and rejected the defendants’ right of retention defense. In light of the fact that the judgment became final and conclusive around that time, the defendants exercised a legitimate right of retention.

It is difficult to see that the defendants' act of claiming a lien and obstructing the work of the victim as a legitimate right holder constitutes a interference with the work.

The lower court’s judgment that found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged is justifiable.

3. The Defendants’ appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act, since all of the appeals by the Defendants are without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.