The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The injured party company is entitled to exercise legitimate right of retention on the instant land and buildings, and possessed the instant land and buildings lawfully.

However, the judgment of the court below that judged the victim company's possession as an illegal possession of the victim company by recognizing the large effect of the agreement to waive the lien of the victim company and denied the lien of the victim company, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the agreement to waive the lien and the meaning of possession, which affected

2. The lower court, based on the detailed circumstances in the item of “2. Determination” of the judgment, determined that “the victim company renounced the right of retention on the instant site and building around July 2008, and thus did not hold the right of retention on the instant site and building, and cannot be legitimately exercised.

B. A victim company already lost possession of the instant land and building at the time specified in the facts charged in the instant case. At the time, G that purchased the instant building had already occupied the instant building lawfully, so the victim company’s attempt to occupy or recover possession of the instant building is merely an illegal possession in relation to G.

Therefore, the act that the victim employees H visited the construction site of this case for the exercise of lien, or that the victim company kept containers within the site of this case for the exercise of lien cannot be deemed as a legitimate performance of duties for the exercise of lien. Thus, the defendant interfered with the exercise of lien by force.

Even if this does not constitute a crime of interference with business affairs (see Supreme Court Decision 82Do2584 delivered on October 11, 1983), it was found not guilty of the facts charged in this case on the ground that it is "."

The judgment of the court below is based on the facts and circumstances properly explained in the part of "2. Judgment" of the judgment of the court below, and the victim company G of the company with limited liability.