The defendant shall be innocent.

1. Around October 14, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was awarded a successful bid of the second floor of the building D, 201, and 301 of the third floor of the building, building D; (b) around March 3, 2011 to October 201, the victim E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “victim E”) performed a tegrative construction work on each of the above real estate; and (c) was unable to receive the construction cost, and exercised a lien by installing locks to prevent access to each of the above real estate from being allowed by others from entering the said real estate from around August 30, 2012.

On October 18, 2013, the Defendant knew that the victim was exercising the right of retention in the auction procedure for each of the above real estate, but around October 18, 2013, the Defendant obstructed the victim’s exercise of the right of retention by attaching locks installed on each of the above real estate by the victim, and replacing it with other locks brought by the Defendant,

2. Each legal statement of E Co., Ltd., E Co., Ltd., F’s written statement, witness F, and G’s written statement as evidence corresponding to the facts charged in the instant case.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court: (i) under this court testimony to the effect that “F, a E employee, occupied the instant real estate while lodging and lodging in the instant real estate from August 30, 2013 to October 20, 2013; (ii) G was aware of the fact that the locking was replaced on or around October 20, 2013; (iii) G was accommodated in the instant real estate; and (iv) in this court, “B was accommodated in the instant real estate; (iv) used electricity on the ground of electric power; and (v) obtained water through pipes on the rooftop side; and (v) became aware of the fact that the door lock was replaced on or around October 21, 2013; (v) however, D testified testified to the effect that “The real estate was replaced from August 20, 2012 to October 20, 2013; and (v) during the exchange of the instant real estate with the entrance of this case, the real estate was not used at all by the Defendant 10.