위증
The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.
1. Whether the defendants' testimony of this case is false or not, ① whether the defendant Gap, G, H, I, J, L, etc. was met with the Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank on Nov. 17, 2005, before the execution of the notarial agreement of this case, ② whether the defendant Gap made the words that the officetel of this case is entrusted with G and I before the execution of the notarial agreement of this case; ③ whether the defendants knew that the officetel of this case was entrusted to the Hyundai Swiss Savings Bank for the purpose of securing the purpose of securing the notarial agreement of this case, and ③ whether the defendants included the notarial agreement of this case in consultation with each other at the time of the execution of the notarial agreement of this case. In light of the above facts, the defendants' statements, G, I, I's statements in fraudulent cases against G on Apr. 15, 2007, report on the date of issuance of the certificate of personal seal impression, and the circumstances leading up to the execution of the notarial agreement of this case, etc., the notarial agreement of this case No.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below acquitted the Defendants by misunderstanding the facts.
2. Determination:
A. The following facts are acknowledged according to each evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court and the first instance court.
1) From around 2001, Defendant A completed the instant officetel’s completion of construction work by being awarded a contract with F for the instant officetel’s construction cost of KRW 2.87 billion, but, as the instant officetel was not paid the said construction cost, Defendant A occupied the instant officetel and exercised the right of retention. (ii) After the instant officetel’s completion of construction work, Defendant A reported a lien on the instant officetel’s claim for construction payment, and the said auction was made three times due to Defendant A’s lien.