The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendants shall be punished by a fine of KRW 500,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the Defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles 1) Defendant B’s refusal to withdraw from each of the above crimes is the E Hospital at the time of each of the above crimes (hereinafter “instant hospital”).

(2) Since Defendant B entered the instant hospital by committing an unlawful act, including a crime, at the time of not occupying it, and thus, Defendant B was not a legitimate lien holder with respect to the instant hospital. Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds that Defendant B deemed the lien holder with respect to the instant hospital and thus acquitted Defendant B, and thus, acquitted Defendant B, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles. (2) The Defendants’ act of defamation by attaching banners on July 14, 2012, is sufficient to reduce the social assessment of the victim F, and thus the Defendants’ act constitutes defamation.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendants not guilty on this part. Therefore, the court below erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal principles.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below (the fine of KRW 500,000) is too uneased and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles 1) The summary of the facts charged in this part (1) as of June 29, 2012, Defendant B, who rejected the withdrawal from the hospital parking lot in this case, around 17:00 on June 29, 2012, should be removed from the victim J and F.

The Gu received the Gu but did not comply with it.

(2) On July 8, 2012, Defendant B, who did not leave the hospital on July 8, 2012, out of the victim F, who occupied the hospital of this case on July 14, 2012 and parked a Ribe vehicle in the hospital parking lot for the purpose of exercising the right of retention.

The Gu received the Gu but did not comply with it.

B) The lower court determined that Defendant B’s representative director C (State) (hereinafter “C”)

The defendant A and the victim F and G husband have contracted the new hospital construction work from the victim F and G couple, but the price is the same.