A defendant shall be punished by a fine of 500,000 won.

When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the owner of the building B located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the victim C corporation is a person who has a lien on the building because it was not paid the construction cost after the construction of the building.

On January 28, 2020, the Defendant thought that the above victim’s right of retention is unreasonable, and caused the Defendant to remove four banners (the “in the course of exercising the right of retention”) equivalent to KRW 120,000 at the market price, which is the victim’s ownership installed on the outer wall of the above building, etc. (the “in the course of exercising the right of retention”).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the filing of a complaint, evidence Nos. 1 to 11

1. Article 36 of the Criminal Act and Article 366 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime, the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the Defendant and the defense counsel asserted that the Defendant’s act constitutes a legitimate act and thus the illegality is excluded, since the Defendant and the defense counsel lawfully removed the banner in order to prevent the Defendant from exercising the Defendant’s ownership in the above building in a situation where the victim did not have the right to retention

To recognize a legitimate act, the requirements such as legitimacy of the motive or purpose of the act, reasonableness of the means or method of the act, balance of the legal interests between the protected interests and the infringed interests, fourth urgency, and fifth supplement that there is no other means or method than the act, etc. should be met.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Do8074 Decided April 27, 2006, etc.). Although there is a difference between the Defendant’s assertion and the victim’s assertion as to the settlement of construction cost according to the flag order in this case, the victim’s exercise of the right of retention is entirely groundless when following the appraiser’s opinion on the preservation of evidence case No. 2019Kagi 104.