1. Defendant A

A. On January 25, 2010, the Defendant interfered with auction, attached to the Civil Execution Division and Office of the Incheon District Court of Law No. 278-2, Nam-gu, Incheon, Incheon, and the Incheon District Court D's D's real estate compulsory auction case, and attached a false copy of the lease contract, which was made on the condition that part of the above house was leased under the condition that the deposit amount was paid to E, even though there was no fact that he paid a security deposit to E, and that he leased part of the above house to E's land, and submitted the above documents to the execution and the employees whose name is unknown.

Accordingly, the defendant interfered with the fair auction of the real estate auction case by fraudulent means.

B. On October 11, 2011, the Defendant failed to receive dividends by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the Incheon District Court Decision 200 million won on March 14, 2012, by paying KRW 20,000,000 to E, and submitting a false report on the right attached to the lease contract and an application for demand for distribution as if he leased part of the above building. However, on March 14, 2012, the Defendant prepared a distribution schedule to the effect that the judicial assistant of the Incheon District Court distributed KRW 16 million to the Defendant. However, on March 9, 2012, the victim H did not receive dividends by filing a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution with the Incheon District Court 201Da22470.

Accordingly, the defendant had attempted to defraud the 16 million won by deceiving the Incheon District Court, but did not achieve that intention, but did not commit an attempted crime.

2. Defendant B

A. On January 25, 2010, the Defendant interfered with auction, in civil execution department and office of the Incheon District Court's civil execution department and office located in the Nam-gu Incheon Metropolitan City University-dong 278-2, the above court D real estate compulsory auction case is subject to the condition that part of the above house is paid as security deposit in an application for a report on rights and a request for distribution, even though there was no fact that the above court D real estate auction case was paid as security deposit to E, and that part of the above