The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. As to the part concerning obstruction of business and intrusion upon residence among the facts charged (1) of the grounds for appeal as to obstruction of business and obstruction of residence, this part of the facts charged is an lawful act accompanying the process of exercising a legitimate right of retention, and thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the establishment of a right of retention.

(2) Even if not, the Defendant believed this part of the facts charged to be justifiable and omitted from the mistake of law, and received counsel's advice, and there is a justifiable reason for mistake, and thus, the crime of interference with business or interference with residence is not established.

B. The grounds of appeal as to the damage to property did not interfere with the use of each entrance entered in the facts charged, and the lessee later replaced it, it cannot be said that the utility of each entrance would be undermined.

C. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (fine 1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. Determination of the argument about obstruction of business and intrusion upon residence (1) The above argument by the defendant is based on the premise that legitimate lien has been established, and thus, we first examine this.

If a contractor who built a new building of a house has a claim for the construction cost incurred in the construction of the building and continues to occupy the building, he/she shall have the right to attract the building. However, such right of retention shall be extinguished if the defendant lost possession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da16202, Sept. 15, 1995). Even if the defendant seized an object in an unlawful manner and possessed it thereafter, the right of retention is not established.

In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below are owned by the victim as stated in the facts charged of this case.