The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, and improper sentencing)

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (related to the point of confinement) 1) The Victim Network K (hereinafter “victim”) was allowed to enter and leave, and the waiver of entry was voluntarily chosen, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant’s act was a confinement.

2) The Defendant exercised his right for the purpose of enforcement under the law by preventing a specific occupant from transferring a new possession with a specific occupant, and there was no intention of confinement.

3) The Defendant managed access to the instant land for the purpose of receiving delivery by preventing a specific occupant and an illegal possession, and the Defendant’s act constitutes a justifiable act to protect the property right.

B. The lower court’s sentence against an unfair defendant in sentencing (2 million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly admitted and examined by the lower court, the following facts are recognized in light of the determination of misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of the legal doctrine (related to the point of confinement) 1).

A) The Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking the transfer of the instant land and the removal, etc. of the plastic greenhouse on the instant land against the lessee, E, etc. (Seoul Southern District Court No. 2011 and Seoul Southern District Court No. 2013, Jan. 28, 2014, 201) against the owner of the land of 875 square meters and D 2,062 square meters (hereinafter collectively referred to as “instant land”) prior to C in light of the name of light (Seoul Southern District Court No. 2011, Jun. 1, 201; 19206, Jan. 28, 2014).

B) The Defendant intended to enforce the instant land based on the foregoing final judgment, but failed to enforce compulsory execution due to the difference between the persons indicated as a party to the execution in the judgment and the actual possessor.

C) On July 11, 2016, around 05:40, the Defendant installed eight containers annually at the boundary line adjoining to the instant land (west northwest) and closed the main entrance of the instant land, and two security guards are placed at one container with the entrance and exit door.