2. Article 20 of the Criminal Act provides that "The acts under the laws and regulations, acts due to duties, and other acts that do not violate social norms shall not be punishable." Whether certain acts are legitimate and reasonable as a legitimate act should be determined reasonably depending on specific cases. In order to recognize a legitimate act, the following requirements should be met: legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act; reasonableness of the means or method; balance between the means or method; Fourth, balance between the benefits of protection and the benefits of infringement; fourth, urgency; and fifth, supplementaryness that there is no other means or method other than the act.

In the instant case, even if the Defendant had a claim for the construction cost of this case against the victim, it is not permissible to occupy the construction site in an unlawful way, rather than a legitimate legal procedure, for the purpose of acquiring a lien (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Do654, Apr. 12, 2007). Thus, the instant act that the Defendant directed H to store the soil of the construction site on the access road by digging up the road and transferring it to the access road with natural stone, which satisfies the requirements such as reasonableness of means or methods, balance of legal interests, urgency, supplement, etc., that is, it is difficult to view that the instant act constitutes a legitimate right of retention.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the defendant's appeal is dismissed in accordance with Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act since it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.