The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants are not guilty.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below which convicted the victims of mistake of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, even though the victims' possession of the building of this case was illegally commenced, and it does not constitute the possession of obstruction of exercise of rights.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (the Defendant’s respective fines of KRW 500,00) is unreasonable.

2. Summary of the facts charged and the judgment of the court below

A. On November 3, 2012, the Defendants conspired to construct a multi-household house outside Yongsan-gu Seoul, and five parcels of multi-household houses (hereinafter “instant building”) around November 18:30, 2012, and entered the entrance, thereby obstructing the victims’ exercise of rights by taking possession of the victim F and G, who are exercising a lien to receive construction price from Defendant A, the owner of the building, by entering the entrance, as an auxiliary door.

B. The lower court determined on the premise that the possession of another person subject to protection in the crime of interference with the exercise of rights does not necessarily mean possession based on the lawful title, and on the premise that it includes possession where possession was lost after the commencement of possession based on the legitimate title, possession until the existence of title is clarified through the legal procedure, possession at the time the existence of title was not commenced through the legal procedure, or possession at the time of concurrent performance defense, etc. which may oppose the dispute resolution through the legal procedure, such as possession at the time when the existence of title was discovered through the legal procedure, and possession at the time of the simultaneous performance defense, etc., the existence of the claim for construction payment claimed by the victims of this case is finalized through the appraisal procedure on the expiration of title and the legal judgment of the court. On April 2012, the victims lost possession at the construction site of this case, but on July 23, 2012.