The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. On June 2005, the Defendant did not receive KRW 371,000,000 from E to E’s site for landscaping work, which was executed by E Company around June 2005.

Accordingly, the Defendant kept a belt on trees planted in the vicinity of the season to exercise the right of retention, and the victim damaged the belt and installed a container in the door of “E” inevitably by hindering the exercise of the right of retention by the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant's act constitutes a legitimate act as it exercises the right of retention that has been lawfully established.

B) Since part of a warranty building was illegal, it was impossible to obtain permission to open the building from the competent authority in 2016, it was not possible to operate the building. Therefore, there was no risk of interference with business. The illegal business is not subject to protection of interference with business.

C) The victim of interference with business is not “D”.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) A container installed by the Defendant on the part of a structure intrusion did not intrude into “E”, and there was no intention to injure the Defendant.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, and erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended execution) is unreasonable as it is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Part 1 of the lower court’s assertion of misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine) The part of the charge of obstruction of business is that the Defendant occupied the tort, and the Defendant exercised a legitimate right of retention.

It is difficult to view this part of the facts charged on the ground that a container installed by the defendant was obstructed by the entry of the construction vehicle and the opening of the cryp site was omitted.