The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant did not have occupied the instant construction site before June 10, 2013 from the victim’s side, and the Defendant exercised legitimate lien on or around June 10, 2013, and thus does not constitute the crime of interference with business.

B. As the Defendant consulted with a certified judicial scrivener, attorney, or police officer whether the exercise of the right of retention is legitimate, there is a justifiable reason under Article 16 of the Criminal Act as to the mistake that the Defendant had the right of retention.

(c) The defendant has no intention to interfere with business.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant’s assertion that he/she exercised a legitimate right of retention, the right to self-defense of the possessor under Article 209(1) of the Civil Act is recognized at the time when there is a danger of deprivation or disturbance of possession. Meanwhile, the right to self-defense of the possessor under Article 209(2) can recover possession in his/her own capacity within a limited and narrow range at the time when possession has been deprived of possession, and as referred to in the above provision, “directly” means “as soon as possible objectively and objectively or within the extent deemed necessary to recover possession by removing the perpetrator in light of social norms,” the possessor cannot exercise his/her right to recovery if he/she had been deprived of possession, regardless of being aware of the deprivation. 26, 1993 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da14116, Mar. 26, 1993). The lower court duly adopted evidence by the Defendant, based on the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, the victim from May 28, 2013.