The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court acquitted the Defendant on the charge of entering a building, among the facts charged in the instant case, and causing property damage.

As to this, only the Defendant appealed against the guilty portion of the lower judgment, the acquittal portion of the lower judgment was separated from the Do of the appeal period and excluded from the scope of the lower court’s judgment.

Therefore, the scope of this court's judgment is limited to the conviction part of the judgment below.

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles is the defendant's act does not constitute an intrusion on a structure since the defendant lawfully enters the building entered in the facts charged to exercise the right of retention as the lien holder

In addition, the construction right and the refusal of the right of retention in the name of the corporation B are merely forged or customaryly prepared, and there was no intention to intrude on the structure against the defendant.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (2 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles must continue to exist in order to establish a lien. If a lien holder loses his/her possession, the lien ceases to exist (Articles 320 and 328 of the Civil Act). The possession, which is the requirement for establishing a lien and the requirement for existence of a lien, refers to an objective relationship that appears to belong to a person’s factual control under the generally accepted social norms. At this time, factual control is not necessarily limited to physical and practical control, but should be determined in accordance with the social concept, taking into account the temporal relationship with the object, the temporal relationship with the object, and the possibility of excluding another person’s control, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da84971, Jan. 29, 2015).

A) B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”).