Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

Therefore, even though each of the above lease contracts was prepared to secure other claims other than the purpose of returning the lease deposit under the Housing Lease Protection Act, it does not constitute a claim entitled to preferential repayment under the Housing Lease Protection Act.

Even if this is not known as a defendant who is not a legal text due to a high level of legal interpretation, and there is a criminal intent to obtain fraud from the defendant.

As such, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and misapprehending the legal doctrine, which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case.

2. On September 28, 2009, the Defendant: (a) participated in a Voluntary auction of the Jeonju District Court E (hereinafter “instant auction procedure”) in the Jeonju District Court’s 20 million won, which is in progress with respect to the building of the Gojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant building”); and (b) reported the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million in the name of F; and (c) reported the lease deposit of KRW 20 million in the name of G, and demand for distribution under the name of G.

However, even though F and G did not have paid the lease deposit at all, in order to settle the claim relationship with H registered as the owner of the above building, the defendant f and G made a false demand for distribution as if F and G paid the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million each by preparing and holding the lease contract in the name of F and employees-friendly G with each of the children of the defendant, F and G, in order to settle the claim relationship with H.

As above, the defendant deceivings employees in the above court's name.