The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant was merely entering the instant building by opening a door, and was in a lodging room for the employees of the said building.

There is no fact that theO was removed from the building, and there is no fact that the notice of the notice of the lien attached to the above building was opened.

B. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the victim L is not a legitimate lien for the building of this case, and the possession is worthy of legal protection.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the above victim guilty of all the facts charged of this case on the premise that the above victim is a legitimate lien holder is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

(c)

The punishment of a fine of 2 million won sentenced by the court below is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On August 8, 2014, the lower court found that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim’s employeeO was in charge of exercising the victim’s right of retention at the employee accommodation in the instant building; (ii) around August 8, 2014, around 01:56, the Defendant, A, B, and D, who was an employee of the instant building, reported 112 to the effect that “it was driven away from the building from the 6 male to the outside of the said building” (Evidence No. 161 of evidence record No. 161 of the said record), and (iii) around that time, those who were in the instant building only six persons, including the Defendant, B, and D, who were employees of other companies employed by N, were working for the said employees (Evidence No. 1, 352, 363O).

2. The fact that it appears to have intruded into the accommodation of the second floor, and the police officer called out after receiving a report at the time 112, who was in the building in question.

A receives a list of guards from A, and the defendant was included in the list (Evidence No. 1, 174, 175 pages), and ④ The notice of the right of retention notice that the victim was exercising the right of retention was removed after the occurrence of this case.