The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In the event of this case, the Defendant, by misapprehending the legal principles, exercised a lien on the claim for construction cost under K and J ground D D D D (hereinafter “the instant loan”) E as the preserved right, and was in possession.

On December 25, 2015, the victim C arbitrarily intruded into the above heading room and deprived the defendant of his possession. The defendant entered the above heading room as stated in the facts charged in order to recover his possession, and the defendant was removed from the locking room in the process.

Therefore, although the Defendant’s act cannot be punished for self-help under Article 209 of the Civil Act, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby finding the Defendant guilty.

B. In light of the circumstances of the instant case, the lower court’s punishment (1.5 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. The facts charged in this case

A. On December 26, 2015, the Defendant: (a) around 09:50, while exercising the right of retention because the victim was not in full payment of the construction cost of the instant loan in the instant loan E, the Defendant was holding the right of retention; (b) with a view to preventing the victim from moving into the instant loan F, the Defendant: (c) with the string of the string door of the said string door to the other string unit; (d) with a view to preventing the other string unit from moving into the said string unit; and (e) with a digital locking device in the market price removed the string unit.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the property owned by the victim.

B. On December 26, 2015, at around 14:55, the Defendant: (a) instructed G, the head of the construction site, who is aware of the circumstances, to hold a right of retention in the victim C’s residence; (b) had G open and open a door door through the second floor corridor window; and (c) infringed upon the victim’s residence.

3. Determination (misunderstanding of facts and misunderstanding of legal principles)

(a) A person de facto control over an article has possessory rights (Article 192 of the Civil Code), and the possessor shall possess it.