The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

Since the Defendant, as a legitimate exercise of the right of retention, misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles, only stockpiled the container boxes of this case, and believed that he had a legitimate title to possess as the lien holder at the time, he cannot be recognized as a crime of interference with business.

The sentencing of the lower court on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the sentencing of a fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

A thorough examination of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below regarding the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles can be sufficiently recognized that the defendant interfered with the victim's work by force, such as the facts charged, on the ground that the defendant has no legitimate lien, even if there is no legitimate lien.

This is more so in considering the following circumstances:

In order to exercise a right of retention, the subject matter of retention must be occupied in order to exercise a right of retention, and when a decision to commence the auction on the subject matter of retention has been registered, the seizure takes effect, and thereafter thereafter, even if the possessor or acquisitor acquires possession of the subject matter of auction, it cannot exercise a right of retention against the execution creditor at the auction procedure. Thus, the lien holder must prove that the Defendant occupied the subject matter of retention before the seizure takes effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2008Da70763, Jan. 15, 2009). There is no evidence to prove that the Defendant had occupied the subject real estate before January 18, 2013, on which the decision to commence the auction had been registered. Rather, the Defendant stated that he installed a container only on March 25, 2013, and there is only evidence to deem that the possession was commenced only on March 25, 2013.

(Public trial record 113 pages) In fact, the Defendant lost the right of retention in civil procedure seeking confirmation of the existence of this case.

In light of the fact that the defendant, after the decision to commence the auction, installs a container and claims a lien, he will interfere with his business.