The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the intrusion of a structure, among two factories owned by C, a stock company, constructed on the E and three lots of land outside the 3rd ground of a strike, there was an infringement on a structure managed by another person only by attaching a banner or printed matter informing of a lien on the outer wall of the building, or by replacing a lock-up device of the office entrance of the building.

subsection (b) of this section.

B. As to the obstruction of business, the above act by the defendant constitutes a justifiable act to exercise the right of retention, and thus, illegality is excluded.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the victim C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim”) contracted construction of two units of factory buildings (hereinafter “factory buildings in this case”) on May 1, 2013 to the Defendant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”) on the land outside E and three parcels of land at the time of selling the building to the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), B started construction of the new factory building on June 30, 2013 and transferred the building to the damaged company with the approval of the use of the building from the owner of the instant factory on September 30, 2014. After completion of construction of a part of the building, the victim Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the damaged company”) completed construction of the building in this case; the damaged company, on September 1, 2015, can be recognized as having been automatically removed from the factory building in this case; and the damaged company, on September 20, 2015, as at the time of the request of the owner of the building in this case.

According to the above facts, the factory building of this case is controlled and managed by the damaged company with human and physical facilities to prevent unauthorized intrusion of other persons, and is prescribed in the crime of intrusion on the building.