The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is as follows: (a) the victim I (hereinafter “victim I”) did not have any claim for construction cost and lien due to the new construction of multi-household housing on the Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H and five parcels (hereinafter “the instant construction”). Therefore, even though the possession of the victim company is not an occupation that is subject to protection of the crime of interference with the exercise of rights, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of interfering with the exercise of rights by misapprehending the legal doctrine or misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. On March 30, 2012, around 06:30 on March 30, 2012, the Defendant, along with E, F, G, etc., cut the locks corrected on the entrance door of the instant construction site and enter into the entrance, thereby hindering the victim’s exercise of rights by taking possession of the victim company.

B. The lower court also asserted the same purport as the grounds for appeal, and the lower court rejected the Defendant’s assertion on the following grounds in the “judgment on the Defendant’s assertion”.

In other words, according to the facts found by the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, the victim company occupied the construction site of this case through K, etc. for the purpose of exercising lien after the suspension of construction.

I would like to say.

In addition, the victim company carried out the instant construction project before its interruption, and it seems that there was a dispute between the victim company and the owner of the instant building as to whether the construction cost to be received by the victim company exceeds the amount already received from the owner of the instant building. However, it was clearly found that the existence additional appearance was clearly revealed around March 30, 2012.

shall not be deemed to exist.

On the other hand, at the time of the conclusion of the instant contract, the special agreement to exclude lien is included (the witness in the second trial protocol of the court below).