However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

When a voluntary auction was conducted upon the application of the Daejeon Central Credit Union with respect to the housing for electric source (hereinafter “instant housing”) and its site newly built by the Defendant as the actual owner, the Defendant prepared one copy of each false statement of payment that D would pay D 280 million won to E, and D would pay D 230 million won, with the false statement of construction contract in the name of D and the false statement of payment that D would pay D 280 million won to E, the Defendant’s wife, and that D would pay 230 million won. On April 25, 2012, the Defendant filed a lien report with the Daejeon District Court located in the Seo-gu Daejeon District Court, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, as above, in the form of a false statement of contract for construction work and a statement of payment, attached with two copies of the false statement of payment.

As a result, the defendant reported false lien in the auction court, thereby harming the fairness of auction through fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. The defendant's partial statement in the first protocol of trial;

1. Each legal statement of witness F and G;

1. Copy of each protocol concerning the examination of suspect by the prosecution against the defendant or D;

1. Application of statutes to a certified real estate register or a record of auction cases;

1. Article 315 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crimes and Article 315 of the Election of Imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act;

1. Determination on the defendant's assertion of Article 62-2 of the Social Service Order Criminal Act

1. The alleged defendant transferred the ownership of the instant house and its site to D due to the debt relationship with D, sold the said house and its site between D and agreed to collect the construction cost which the defendant invested in the new construction of the said house on a preferential basis. The defendant's claim under this agreement was known to the effect that the secured claim of the right of retention was secured by the right of retention, and such report of the right of retention did not interfere with auction and did not intentionally interfere with auction by the defendant.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence of the judgment, the evidence is examined.