The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal stated that G Incorporated Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), the Defendant purchased the instant land from K through the introduction of J, and that “The victim is merely a subcontractor of the construction works of the building newly constructed on the instant land, the J is a legitimate lien holder, and the victim’s right of retention will resolve the problem of the victim’s exercise of the right of retention.”

Accordingly, the defendant believed that the right of retention of the victim was resolved by the J and committed an act stated in the facts charged, so the defendant did not have intention to obstruct the exercise of the right of retention of the victim.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. The key issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant, around May 21, 201, was aware of “the fact that the injured party is exercising a lien while occupying the instant building and site” at the time of engaging in the act recorded in the facts charged, such as setting up a cryp at the entrance of the instant building, etc.

In light of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, i.e., ① the Defendant analyzed the relationship of rights by means of the current auction data on the instant land, etc. in order to purchase the instant land on or around April 2, 2011, and responded to the site of the instant land, the Defendant reported the lien to the court of auction (U.S. District Court) and observed the fact that the Defendant was exercising the lien by putting the banner called “in the course of exercising the lien” on the exterior wall of the instant building (Evidence No. 94,95, 149, 255), ② the person who reported to the above auction court as the lien was the victim, ③ the Defendant G.