The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. A summary of the grounds for appeal: (a) the Defendant’s setting up one stack at the entrance of central stairs and altering and occupying the correction device pursuant to subparagraph 110 of the above building, which is merely a legitimate exercise of a right of retention, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act; (b) although the Defendant was against one another in the course of dialogue with the victim, it does not constitute assaulting the victim with intention, the lower judgment convicting the Defendant of the facts charged of this case by misapprehending the facts or misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Of the facts charged in this case, the court below found the defendant guilty as to interference with the business of this case as to interference with the business of this case. The court below found that the defendant's act of parking a scke in front stairs of the entrance door of the commercial building of this case and preventing the management of the victim Eul's building or the sales office of the victim G's company cannot be deemed to be included in the management act or to be included in the legitimate exercise of the right of retention. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, i.e., ① the defendant was occupying and using part of the 1st floor of the building of this case as part of the right of retention as stated in the facts charged, but at the time the victim G was also holding the sales office part of the 1st floor of the building of this case as part of the 1st floor of the building of this case, ② the defendant's act of managing the building within the necessary scope, and ③ the defendant's act of selling the building in this case may interfere with the above business.