The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the misunderstanding of facts and the misunderstanding of legal principles are asserted on the grounds of an express appeal that the facts are misunderstood in the reasoning of appeal and the pleading, but the defendant is willing to make a mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles in light of the purport of the allegation).

From April 2013, the Defendant, from around April 2013, exercised the right of retention in possession of the above 803 building (hereinafter “the instant building”) from around April 1, 2013, in order to secure the claim for the construction cost of building D with respect to the building as stated in the facts charged, the Defendant had silentd the Defendant’s exercise of the right of retention, and did not manage the instant building. As such, the Defendant’s act of entering the instant building based on the legitimate right of retention does not meet the requirements for the establishment of the crime of intrusion into the building, or constitutes a legitimate

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below convicting of the crime of intrusion on a structure is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The judgment of possession is a requirement for the existence of interest on the requirements for establishment of the lien, and the lien ceases to exist due to the loss of possession.

In the instant case, comprehensively taking account of the health care of whether the Defendant continued to possess the instant building, and the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant was entrusted by E on May 28, 2013 with the exercise of the right of retention to secure the Defendant’s claim for construction price regarding D houses and commercial buildings including the instant building. Meanwhile, the instant building was leased to N for three months from July 1, 2013 by G, the husband’s interest E, which is both of the victims’ husband and wife, with the intent to install urban gas in the instant building and to seek other lessees on or after October 1, 2013, and the Defendant prepared a business contract with E on March 29, 2014, and excluded the instant building from the exercise of the right of retention.