The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act as part of exercising the right of retention, inasmuch as the Defendant occupied the instant construction site to receive the payment of construction price claims by unfairly terminating the construction contract from the victim.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, which was unlawful.

(In fact, mistake, misunderstanding of legal principles).

The punishment (a fine of 1.5 million won) declared by the court below against the defendant is too unreasonable.

(F) Judgment on the misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant from around 08:00 on August 19, 201 to the same year.

8. From 22. 22. up to 09:00, the victim’s new construction industry installed at the site of the construction of the Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, where the victim new construction industry is working, parked the D wing-off vehicles in front of the 307 entrance of the building C and made it difficult to enter the construction vehicles, such as ready-mixed vehicles, at the construction site, thereby obstructing the victim’s work by force.

In addition, from around that time to September 1, 201, the Defendant obstructed the construction work of the said victim by the same method four times in total.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act as part of the exercise of the right of retention, the lower court determined that the Defendant’s possession of the goods, etc. of another person constitutes a tort (Article 320(2) of the Civil Act), it is reasonable to view that, in May 2011, the Defendant suspended the construction of the instant apartment around May 1, 201, and occupied the part of the access road at the construction site of this case as indicated in the facts charged after leaving the construction site and losing the occupation thereof, and thus, it appears that the Defendant’s aforementioned possession of the access road portion is not a lawful possession, and that the Defendant’s domestic act was to recover the construction price for the victim