1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Ⅰ. The reasoning of the first instance judgment citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment is reasonable, and this applies to the examination of the evidence submitted by the appellate court in addition to the evidence submitted by the first instance court. Thus, the reasoning of the first instance judgment citing the reasoning of the first instance judgment on the ground of this judgment

Ⅱ. 1. Added as described in paragraph 1:

Ⅱ In Section 2. Paragraph 2, the defendant added a decision as to the main argument that the appellate court repeats or adds.

Ⅱ Judgment as to additional entry and attachment of the reasoning of the first instance judgment

1. Additional statement in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance

A. A. Additional statement of the first instance judgment No. 4, 14, and 15 of the evidence, etc. added to the statement of the grounds for fact-finding, “A evidence No. 22, B No. 25, and this court’s obvious facts”

B. The following is added between 8 and 9 pages 6 of the first instance judgment, which added the facts of recognition.

[2] On June 10, 2014, G employees of the Plaintiff received a summary order of KRW 700,000 from the Seoul Southern District Court rendered a judgment of innocence on the grounds that “The Defendant interfered with the Defendant’s legitimate construction business by force on the grounds that he did not receive construction payment within the instant site from October 22, 2013 to October 08:10 on the same day.” As to this, G demanded formal trial. The Seoul Southern District Court (2014DaDa2275) applied for formal trial. On January 19, 2015, the Seoul Southern District Court (2014Da3275) started by the method of illegally depriving the Plaintiff’s possession, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s work that was carried out after the illegal occupancy commenced cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s work could not be seen as a work worth protecting the Defendant’s work under the Criminal Act.” However, the Prosecutor appealed occupied the Seoul Southern District Court from the Seoul Southern District Court (2015No21984, May 1985.

Defendant G’s objection rather than Defendant G.