The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The defense counsel's written opinion on March 28, 2017 submitted after the deadline for submission of the statement of reasons for appeal to the gist of the appeal is examined only to the extent of supplement in case of supplement of reasons for appeal specified in the written reasons for appeal.

A. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the charge of this case, even though it did not constitute a crime of interference with business since November 2008 because the Defendant had lawfully occupied the instant land from November 2008 and exercised a lien. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the establishment of a joint principal offender, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The punishment sentenced by the lower court (2.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Determination of the lower court on factual misunderstanding or misapprehension of the legal doctrine as to the ground for appeal of this case at the lower court, and the lower court exclusively occupied the instant land by exclusively installing a container at the entrance of the instant land, i.e., the following circumstances: (i) at the time of the Defendant’s installation of a pentice to perform construction works on the instant land around October 2014; (ii) the Defendant was merely the installation of a container at the site of the instant land before the commencement of the construction works; and (iii) the instant land is not deemed to have been permanently occupied solely by installing a container at the site of approximately 60,00 square meters.

In addition, G also appears to have installed a container within the instant land until August 2014, 4, the fact that the Defendant appears to have never claimed or exercised the right of retention, etc. in the public sale procedure with regard to the instant land, and 5, it is necessary to possess the Defendant lawfully to recognize the right of retention. The Defendant’s title to the commencement of possession of the instant land is unclear, and 6, the materials submitted by the Defendant are the Defendant.