All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding 1) The fact that Defendant A received three bonds from the F as a debt for the construction price from Defendant A, but this is not the repayment of the substitute but the payment of the construction price as a collateral for the construction price.

As such, since the claim for the construction cost has not yet been fully repaid, there is still a claim for the construction cost, and Defendant A has been kept and managed in the NAY-gu NE (hereinafter referred to as “instant housing”) at the time of the ownership of M, such as construction materials, sediment, and household tools, so the right of retention is legally established.

Therefore, it is not reasonable to report a lien in the auction procedure for the instant house, and to file a complaint against the act of leaving the goods kept by the Defendant A out of the house of this case on March 25, 2013 against the charge of obstructing the exercise of rights. Moreover, the Defendants’ act of entering the mari in order to bring the Defendant A into the instant house cannot be deemed as a residential intrusion.

2) Defendant B, who is the husband, entered a ma in order to bring Defendant A and his animals into the instant house again, which cannot be assessed as a residential intrusion.

B. The punishment sentenced by the court below (defendant A: imprisonment of one year, two years of suspended execution, 120 hours of community service, and 3 million won of fine) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to the Defendants’ assertion of misunderstanding of facts, the Defendants and the defense counsel at the original instance asserted the same purport, and the lower court rejected the Defendants’ assertion in detail by providing a detailed statement on the assertion under the title “determination of the Defendants and the defense counsel’ assertion” in the judgment.

Examining the circumstances presented by the lower court and the following circumstances admitted by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment is determined.