The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts) at the time of the construction of the instant commercial building, even if the representativeJ, etc. received the sale price from the two parties, completed the construction of the instant commercial building within the agreed time limit and received the sale price from the several parties without intent or ability to transfer the ownership normally to the two parties, and acquired the title of the owner of the instant commercial building with a view to avoiding compulsory execution against the building, and became final and conclusive by sentence of imprisonment due to the crime of fraud and evasion of compulsory execution.

And the name of D on the banner, etc. posted by the defendant is the representative of the above F, G is the representative director of H, a corporation managing the facilities of the commercial building of this case, and I is the management director of the above H.

On the other hand, the Defendant receives some of the instant commercial buildings in the form of real reimbursement for the construction price, and the Defendant is the chairperson of the damage countermeasures delegated by the other multiple parties on the exercise of lien.

F is a company that acquired the ownership of the instant commercial building in accordance with the crime of evasion of compulsory execution by J, etc., and there is no right to lease the instant commercial building, and H that entrusted the management of the commercial building to F does not have the right to collect the management expenses of the instant commercial building. However, the management of the instant commercial building and the exercise of the right of retention by several parties, including the Defendant, is hindered.

Therefore, the Defendant’s act of attaching the instant banner, etc. as part of exercising the right of retention on the instant commercial building in the position of the chairman of the damage countermeasures against several parties, and thus, the illegality is excluded pursuant to Article 310 of the Criminal Act, since the Defendant’s act of attaching the Defendant’s banner, etc. is for public interest.

Nevertheless, the court below found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case, and it erred by misapprehending the legal principles.