The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The judgment of the court below that found the defendant guilty of the charge of obstruction of business on the premise that the victim did not have any business duties under Article 202 of the building as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter "the building of this case"), but did not have such business duties, the victim was guilty on the facts charged of obstruction of business against J Co., Ltd. under the above 202.

B. In light of the legal principles, the Defendant, as a lawful lien for the instant building, installed an electronic key by drilling the present door as stated in the facts charged, and occupied the instant building 202 and taken the house, etc. out of the house, constitutes an act within the scope necessary for the preservation of the custody, and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which convicted him of the violation of the Punishment of Violences, etc. Act (joint property damage, etc.) and the charge of obstruction of business, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the various evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion of mistake of facts, the victim’s duty cannot be recognized or such duty does not belong to the subject of protection of the obstruction of business, solely on the ground that the victim’s representative as the J Co., Ltd. by the end of October 2012 is sufficiently recognized the fact that the pertinent business was conducted by the said Co., Ltd. (202) and most of the goods within the said 202 are household goods or most of the goods are not owned by the victim.

It is difficult to see it.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

B. Determination of the misapprehension of legal principles 1) Whether a lien is granted to the defendant, first of all, whether the defendant had a legitimate lien at the time of each of the crimes of this case.

A right of retention shall be extinguished by the loss of possession (Article 328 of the Civil Code), and if the possession is caused by a tort, the right of retention shall be.