A. Defendant B did not have been involved in the preparation and submission of the lien report of this case.

B. In light of the background of the Defendants’ wrongful assertion of sentencing, the lower court’s punishment against the Defendants (the Defendants: KRW 3 million each of the fines) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination:

A. The facts and circumstances acknowledged by the court below based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below as to the defendants Eul's assertion of mistake of facts are as follows. ① The limited company E is the representative director of the company that completed the registration of incorporation on January 7, 2009, and Eul and Eul are recorded in the register of auditors and directors. The location of the above headquarters is the same as the domicile of the defendant Eul and his children as "T, the building of 1/1005 and the building of 1/1005," ② The representative director of D acquired by the defendants is the defendant Eul and the children of the defendant Eul are listed in the register of each in-house corporation as the defendant Eul and the defendant Eul were operated mainly by the defendant's family; ③ the defendant Eul and the limited company Eul are actually involved in the above two companies' response to voluntary request for auction of real estate cooperatives from the purchase of the land of this case to the price of the above two companies, and each of the defendant Eul and the defendant Eul can be found to have formed the right of retention in the judgment of the court below.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

B. In the auction procedure for determining the Defendants’ unfair assertion of sentencing, filing a false lien is an act that may affect the auction price, and the nature of the crime is not somewhat weak.