The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

In full view of the victim F and H’s statements, written confirmations, etc., the defendant occupied the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government G Apartment 801 to exercise the victim F’s right of retention instead of the victim F’s right of retention. Thus, the defendant has a duty to maintain the right of retention faithfully until the full recovery of the victim’s credit. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the fact that the defendant was not guilty of the facts charged in this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Judgment

The summary of the facts charged and the summary of the facts charged by the lower court were from August 22, 2005, the Defendant, from around August 22, 2005, who did not receive KRW 100,000 to the injured Party F’s KRW 100,000,000 for the G apartment and for the construction cost on the side of the Seodaemun-gu Seoul apartment (hereinafter “instant real estate”), was an exercise of the right of retention, instead of

Therefore, the defendant, who was exercising the right of retention on behalf of the lien, has the duty to maintain the right of retention faithfully until the full amount of the claim of the above victim is recovered.

However, on July 25, 2007, the Defendant waived the right of retention in the process of auction in accordance with the decision to commence a voluntary auction upon the request of the National Bank on the instant real property, and acquired the ownership in the name of the Defendant on May 28, 2008 after being awarded the bid price of KRW 152 million.

Accordingly, the defendant acquired the 100 million won proprietary benefits, and the above victim suffered property damage equivalent to the same amount.

According to the evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the court below held that the defendant continuously or indirectly occupied the real estate of this case from August 22, 2005 to the present time, and that the victim confirmed that the defendant occupied and used the real estate of this case, and further, the defendant's real estate of this case from the victim.