All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendants misunderstanding the facts are merely entering the instant building by opening a door, and was in a lodging room for the employees of the said building.

There is no fact that theO was removed from the building, and there is no fact that the notice of the notice of the lien attached to the above building was opened.

B. In the misapprehension of the legal principle, the victim L is not a legitimate lien for the building of this case, and the possession is worthy of legal protection.

subsection (b) of this section.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the above victim guilty of all the facts charged of this case on the premise that the above victim is a legitimate lien holder is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to

(c)

The punishment sentenced by the court below to the defendants is too unreasonable because each sentence (the fine of two million won) sentenced to the defendants is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. On August 8, 2014, the lower court reported 112 to the effect that the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts: (i) the victim’s employeeO was in charge of exercising the victim’s right of retention at the employee accommodation in the instant building; (ii) around August 8, 2014, the victim was in charge of driving away from the said building on the part of the employee accommodation; (iii) around August 8, 2014, around 01:56, the victim was able to drive away from the said building (Evidence No. 161 of evidence record No. 161; hereinafter the same shall apply); and (iv) around that time, the victim’s employeeO was only six persons, including C and the Defendants, who were the employees of the station for guard employed by N, and two employees of other companies (Evidence No. 1, 352, 363 of evidence record No. 1, 363).

2. The fact that it appears to have intruded into a lodging room on the second floor, ③ Police Officers called out upon receiving the report from the Defendant A, who was in the above building, received the list of guards from the said Defendant A, and the Defendants were included in the list (Evidence No. 1, No. 174, No. 175 of the evidence record), ④ The right of retention informing the victim that he was exercising the right of retention.