The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the absence of an assault against U.S. claiming a lien on the day of the instant case, the Defendant was guilty of this part of the facts charged, and the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. In light of all the sentencing conditions of the instant case of unfair sentencing, the lower court’s punishment (a fine of three million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the determination of the assertion of mistake of facts, a public offering does not require any legal punishment, but is only a combination of the intent of two or more persons to realize a crime through the joint processing of the two or more persons. As such, a public offering is established in cases where the combination of the two or more persons is made in order or impliedly.

In addition, strict proof is required to recognize such a conspiracy, but where the defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts having considerable relevance to the nature of the object, and in such a case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance should be determined by the method of reasonably determining the connection of the fact through close observation and analysis based on normal empirical rule.

(1) In light of the above legal principles, the following circumstances, which could be revealed by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, are, namely, ① the lessee referred to in subparagraphs 405, 802, and 803 of the instant building (U.S. D.) and the party asserting a lien on the said building, among the lessees referred to in subparagraphs 405, 802, and 803 of the instant building (U.S.) and the dispute between the victims claiming a lien and the possession of the said building, are included in the instant building on February 22, 2012.