The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the victim was occupied and used by the defendant in lieu of the construction cost while he was unable to receive wages from H in connection with the instant CBD Corporation under the approval of H in lieu of the construction cost. It is reasonable to view that the victim has a lien on the above 201 against the victim as the person participating in the CBD Corporation Corporation, and there is sufficient evidence to support that the defendant, impliedly or implicitly, ordered E to take possession of the above 201, but the judgment of the court below which acquitted the defendant otherwise is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. On March 3, 2012, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the victim’s exercise of rights by removing a locking device between the victim D, who occupied and residing in the said Ba, and then changed it into another locking device, and preventing the victim from entering the said 201, by installing another locking device.

B. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty on the ground that the evidence of the application for prosecutor’s examination is not sufficient to readily conclude the legality of the Defendant’s possession of the instant CBL 201, and that the Defendant cannot be recognized as having occupied the Defendant.

C. (1) Review of the facts admitted by this Court’s judgment reveals the following facts.

(A) The Defendant Company F (hereinafter “F”) whose representative director is the Defendant, ordered Company G (hereinafter “G”) whose representative director is E to newly construct the instant C loan. However, G again ordered H to collectively subcontract the instant C loan to H, and the victim was under H to work for the instant C loan construction.

(B) E is funds while H is proceeding with the instant C lending construction.