The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant commenced possession of the above building after the seizure became effective after the compulsory auction commencement decision was made to E hospital located in D at two weeks at two weeks (hereinafter “instant building”). Since the possession of the Defendant conflicts with the effect of the prohibition of the disposition of seizure, the Defendant cannot claim the right of retention.

B. Even if the defendant's right of retention is acknowledged, according to the court's testimony at the court below by K, etc., the defendant is only acknowledged to have transferred possession on his own will without raising any objection to the execution of delivery by the execution officer, and there was no fact that the defendant has deprived of possession of the building of this case.

(c)

However, the judgment of the court below which acquitted all of the charges of this case on the ground that the illegality of the defendant's act is excluded by exercising the right of self-help by the possessor under Article 209 of the Civil Act on the premise that the right of retention is recognized on the premise that the defendant's act is recognized as a right of retention

2. On May 15, 2014, the Defendant, in collaboration with C on the charge, filed a lien with E Hospital located in C at Yangju-si on May 14:24, 201, and filed a CCTV work with C. The Defendant “ must suspend the work of this son.”

It will be a big day when it should be suspended.

"............ for about 10 minutes of CCTV

They prevented workers from doing work, and they installed containers on access roads to the hospital at 16:30 on the same day and interfere with the E hospital construction business managed by the victim F by preventing vehicle traffic, and at the same time infringed the utility of real estate delivered by compulsory execution.

3. Judgment on the grounds for appeal

A. The lower court determined based on the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, and subsequently, based on the following facts, the Defendant on May 15, 2014, which was at the time of the execution of the judgment on delivery of a building.