The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant occupied and managed the construction site and exercised the right of retention in order to receive the payment of the construction cost for destruction as stated in the judgment of the court below, and each act in the judgment of the court below constitutes an act to protect the defendant's right of retention and constitutes a legitimate act or a legitimate defense, and there was no intention to interfere with business by spreading false facts as stated in

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found all of the facts charged of this case guilty is erroneous by misapprehending the legal principles.

2. The lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the same purport as the grounds for appeal of this case at the lower court, on the grounds that the Defendant stated in detail the Defendant’s assertion and its decision on the assertion under the title “determination of the Defendant and his defense counsel” in the judgment

In light of the following facts admitted by the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below, the decision of the court below that the defendant could sufficiently recognize that he did not exercise the right of retention against the construction site at the time, as stated in the facts constituting an offense in the court below, even though he could not exercise the right of retention, and there was no error by mistake of facts or by misapprehending the legal principles as pointed out by the defendant.

① If a contractor who performed the new construction work of a building occupies the building and has a claim for the construction cost arising from the building, the contractor shall have the right to retain the building until his/her claim is repaid. However, if the contractor who has been awarded the contract for the new construction work of a building has installed on the land any fixtures which cannot be viewed as an independent building in light of social norms and has been interrupted, the fixtures cannot exercise a lien on such fixtures because they are merely identical to the objects of the land, and the claim for the construction cost incurred until the discontinuance of the construction is not due to the claim for the land.