The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On July 7, 2013, the Defendant: (a) continuously occupied the instant hotel from around July 7, 2013 and was exercising the right of retention; and (b) as a mere fact, the Defendant installed a container stuff in compliance with the victim H’s infringement of the right of retention and publicly announced that he/she is in the course of exercising the right of retention, thereby hindering the Defendant

The defendant, who did not have any intention to interfere with his duties, added the argument that there was no fact that the defendant had a branch office of container stuffs through the final argument of the defense counsel as of the closing date of the trial and the summary of his oral argument on October 13, 2017. However, each of the above arguments was newly raised after the lapse of the period for submitting the appeal, and it cannot be deemed a legitimate ground for appeal. Even if ex officio, the evidence submitted by the defendant sufficiently recognizes the fact that the defendant ordered the installation of container stuffs. Thus, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. misunderstanding of the legal principles, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right of retention against E hotel operated by the victim H and obtained a favorable judgment in the first instance court, and indicated his/her own right of retention externally, and thus, constitutes a justifiable act that does not go against the social norms.

(c)

The punishment of the lower court (one year of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the assertion of mistake of facts, and the defendant's prosecutor's statement (Evidence No. 372 of the evidence record), it can be acknowledged that the defendant occupied the third and the 16th floor of the hotel of this case on July 2014 and was found that the defendant occupied the 3rd and the 16th floor, and therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion that the defendant continuously occupied the hotel of this case is without merit.

B. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of misapprehension of the legal doctrine, namely, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against E hotel.