All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

Summary of Grounds for Appeal

A. misunderstanding of facts: Defendant A1: The Defendant did not have inflicted an injury on the victim J by putting the victim’s fingers away; even if the victim’s family affairs meet the Defendant’s custody, it is by negligence. 2) Unfair sentencing: The lower court’s imprisonment (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. Defendant B (1) The Defendant’s act constitutes a self-help act.

B) Defendant A did not have inflicted an injury by getting off the victim J’s fingers, and even if Defendant A’s fingers were paid by Defendant A’s fingers, it was by negligence, and there was no conspiracy of injury. C) The Defendants did not have destroyed the door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door.

2) Unreasonable sentencing: The punishment of the lower court against the Defendant (six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable. C. misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles: Defendants did not have conspired to cause damage or injury to property; Defendant A et al. could not have anticipated that the victims would incur injury in the process of putting away the sensci in favor of the Defendant et al.; and there was no other service providers’ act of causing damage to property.

2) Unreasonable sentencing: The lower court’s sentence (Defendant C: a fine of KRW 7 million, Defendant D: the fine of KRW 4 million is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendant B’s assertion of self-help, the Defendants, including the Defendant B, made the same assertion in the lower court. In light of the circumstances indicated in the judgment, it is difficult to view that the Defendants were unable to preserve their claim due to lawful procedures at the time, and even if they succeeded to the removal of a building by the same method as the instant case, it was not possible to recover the lien lawfully. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion was rejected by deeming that each of the instant acts by the Defendants did not constitute the act of self-help. Examining the judgment of the