The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact-finding, the Defendant was not the actual owner of E (hereinafter referred to as “the first owner”), and C, a corporation in which the Defendant actually operated, owned the claim for construction price as to the above E, and occupied it prior to the decision of voluntary auction.

(hereinafter referred to as "the second chapter"). Accordingly, the defendant's act of reporting the right of retention in the name of C to an auction court via K does not constitute an obstruction of auction.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

A. The Defendant is the actual representative director of the C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) for the purpose of Internet shopping mall or remodeling business in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Geumcheon-gu and the first floor.

The Defendant, from around December 2006 to around 2012, operated Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E (hereinafter “the instant Hanbacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacaciiacacacacacacacacacaciiacacacacaciiacacacacacacacacacacacacacacacsacacacsacacacsacacacacacacaca), which had no experience in operation from around December 2012 to around December 2015, G applied for a voluntary auction of the said Hanbacacacacacacacacacaca

[B] I Limited Company (hereinafter “Special Purpose Company”)

A) Around May 2016, the Defendant received the claim from G and took over the auction procedure. Around May 2016, the Defendant made a proposal to K that “I may receive money if I exercise the right of retention on the ground of the claim for the construction cost on the so-called “as C’s representative director has a claim for the construction cost on the so-called “, so I may receive money if I exercise the right of retention on the ground of the claim for the construction cost.”