The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Provided, That the above punishment shall be imposed for two years from the date of the final judgment.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (the factual error and the misapprehension of legal principle) is that the defendant did not have the right to possess the victim D's building located in Daejeon Pongdong-gu Daejeon (hereinafter "the building of this case") at the time of this case, and the victim damaged the corrective device installed in the building and intrudes it without permission. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles, or

2. Determination

A. On June 21, 201, the Defendant asserted a lien on the ground that the instant building was changed from E to the victim, and the victim’s previous owner E and the Defendant had a problem of civil resolution to resolve the interior of the said building, thereby arbitrarily removing the corrective device installed on the first floor, the entrance and the rear door of the instant building, and invaded the victim’s building without permission. In the same time and place, the Defendant invaded on the building at the same time and place, and damaged two corrective devices worth KRW 50,000 in the market price by arbitrarily replacing two corrective devices.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the Defendant’s act of self-help pursuant to Article 209(2) of the Civil Act constitutes an act of self-help under Article 209(2) of the Civil Act, since the Defendant occupied the building by possessing the key of the instant building even if he renounced the right of retention against E, the victim damaged the correction device and entered the building to escape possession right only after replacing the correction device of the said building.

C. 1) The phrase “self-help act” under the Criminal Act refers to an act in order to avoid the impossibility or significant difficulty of the exercise of a claim when it is impossible to preserve the claim by the statutory procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Do4328, May 11, 2007).