The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles have legitimate lien on the F building located in Gwangju Northern-gu C (hereinafter “instant building”), and thus all the acts of having contacted the entrance of the building or exchanging corrective devices, and of attaching an inducement at the entrance to the effect that it is during the exercise of lien, all of the acts of attaching it to the entrance, as the lien holder, is allowed to exercise the legitimate right as the lien holder

Even if it is not so, the defendant believed that he is a legitimate lien holder and did the above act, so there was no awareness of intention or illegality of the damage of property or obstruction of business.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles or affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In consideration of various circumstances on the Defendant’s grounds of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (one million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. (1) First, as to the assertion that the defendant is the lien holder of the building of this case, it is necessary to continue a legitimate possession of the object and to have the relationship between the claim and the object in order to recognize the lien as a right to the custody of the object until the defendant is reimbursed for the claim arising with respect to the object.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, since the defendant entered into a contract with construction business operators such as I, etc. of this case to remove bathing rooms of the third through fifth floor of the building of this case and a contract for remodeling construction of the fifth floor of the building of this case, it is recognized that the above construction business operator performed the construction work of this case, the creditor (such as I et al.) of construction cost of this case has a right of retention, but it cannot be deemed that the defendant acquired a right of retention directly on the building of this case under the above circumstances, the defendant'

In addition, the court below held.