All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

The costs of the trial shall be borne by the defendants.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, Defendant A, and B, as an employee of the instant commercial building development company, who is the owner of the instant commercial building, raised an objection to the removal and alteration of the locks of entrance doors installed in the corridor, which is the common area without the consent of the alternative development company, the owner of the instant commercial building, and there was no door locked or replacement of locks.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and thereby finding the Defendant guilty of the facts charged.

B. Defendant C had occupied and used the instant commercial buildings from March 2009 with L, G, etc. After performing interior construction, Defendant C had occupied and used the instant commercial buildings. However, the lower court erred by misapprehending the fact and misunderstanding the fact that F changed the locks without permission and prevented Defendant C, the possessor of the instant commercial buildings, thereby locking the entrance within the boundary.

2. The judgment of the court below is based on the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below and the following circumstances, i.e., (1) since the completion of the construction of the commercial building of this case from the end of October 2008, Defendant C did not present the right of retention for part of the commercial building of this case, or (2) the commercial building of this case was separated from each other, because Defendant C did not present the lease contract or the occupancy assistance contract for the commercial building of this case, and submitted only the management fee receipt or the city gas construction contract related to the internal construction of the commercial building of this case, which is prepared under the name of the E-S Complex Management Office as the management office. However, in light of the circumstances such as the evidence submitted by the witness G of the court below or L himself, which is called as the object of L in relation to the commercial building of this case, it does not appear that Defendant C is the possessor of the commercial building of this case independently from the witness G of the court below, unlike the statement of the court below.