Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

However, the defendant shall be sentenced to the above punishment for one year from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, around October 19, 2018, had D (the present owner of the factory of this case) receive a successful bid for auction from G (the present owner of the factory of this case) who was the object of auction, G and C (hereinafter “instant factory building”), and the victim E is based on the internal repair payment claim of the above factory, and is exercising the right of retention from October 19, 2016.

1. From May 2018 to July 16, 2018, the Defendant arbitrarily removed and damaged one banner printed with the phrase “in the exercise of lien” in an amount equivalent to 50,000 won at the market price owned by the victim, which was installed outside the warehouse entrance door of the instant factory building in Gyeongbuk-gun B from around 2018.

2. From January 14, 2019 to February 7, 2019, the Defendant removed and destroyed two placards printed with the phrase “in the exercise of lien” equivalent to KRW 100,000 in the market price owned by the victim, which was installed outside the entrance door of the warehouse and the entrance door of the office in favor of each of the aforementioned paragraph (1).

Summary of Evidence

1. A witness D or E’s written estimate of construction works, written confirmation of the payment of construction cost, written consent to lien possession, waiver of construction works and written confirmation of construction completion, and notice of the date of distribution;

1. The defendant asserts that the defendant's assertion of the result of execution of the request for the provision of communication confirmation data is that the damage and damage of the property as stated in the judgment of the court below was a building owner D, the owner of the building.

However, according to D and E’s legal statement and evidence submitted by the prosecution (in particular, communication confirmation data, etc.), the Defendant, while visiting the building of this case before and after the successful bid, raised an objection in relation to E’s exercise of lien, and frequent access to the above site before and after the successful bid of the building of this case.