The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the following grounds, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

1) As to the violation of building intrusion and obstruction of business, the defendant and co-defendants in the court below did not constitute intrusion on a structure since they entered the sales office with which anyone can have access, and the defendant not only purchased the above sales office, but also exercised legitimate right as a lien holder based on the contract price claim, and thus constitutes a justifiable act. 2) As to the damage, the defendant and co-defendants in the court below did not have damaged the current reading center or closed-circuit wire as stated in the facts charged.

3) As to defamation, it is true that the Defendant committed an act as described in the facts charged, or that it was intended to inform the Defendant of the exercise of the Defendant’s right of retention and prevent damages to the union members and the general public. This is a public interest, and the illegality of such act is excluded. (b) The punishment sentenced by the lower court of unreasonable sentencing (a fine of three million won is too unreasonable).

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court, determination on the assertion of mistake of facts is acknowledged as follows: ① A victim D association (hereinafter “victim association”).

(C) On August 2012, 2012, U.S. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “U”) changed its trade name from around February 2016 to V; hereinafter “U”).

2) The Plaintiff and the Victim Association were to construct B apartment units (hereinafter “instant construction”).

(2) The victim union cancelled the contract for construction work with U around November 1, 2015, and W (hereinafter “W”) around January 2016, 2016.

B. As to the instant construction work