Nevertheless, the court below found the defendant guilty, and there is an error of mistake of facts.

2. In order to establish the right of retention, the goods of another person must be possessed and the claims arising in respect of such goods must be due and payable.

In light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the court below by comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly adopted and examined, the defendant cannot be deemed to have a lien for CD (hereinafter “D”) and the defendant also was aware of such facts. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

F, the actual representative of the victim company, is partially proceeding with the Corporation G (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant Operation Company") operated by the defendant in the investigative agency and the court of original instance.

Around July 2017, the victim company had suspended and carried out the construction work by putting necks into the victim company, but the victim himself stated that he was slaped by the Defendant, and submitted a written statement to the same effect as above, such as H and construction-related parties, H, J, and K.

Around July 20, 2017, the Defendant installed a banner called "in the exercise of the right of retention" in D around July 20, 2017. However, in light of the fact that the Defendant stated in the prosecution that the Defendant's O was damaged at the site on July 21, 2017, the Defendant appears not to have been in D even at the time of the removal of the banner.

In light of the above, it is difficult to view that the Defendant continued to possess the No. D even after the discontinuance of construction, as alleged by the Defendant.

In addition, there is no evidence to deem that the Defendant had a claim against the victim company at the time of committing the instant crime.

Therefore, guilty of the facts charged in the instant case.