Even if it is not so, the defendant did not report the right of retention in advance with I who is the actual manager of F, and did not report the false facts by fraudulent means as well as reported the right of retention.

Moreover, despite the Defendant’s report of lien, the successful bid price was not supported by lower successful bid price, so this does not substantially interfere with the auction.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case although it cannot be deemed that the crime of interference with auction was established. The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances acknowledged by the lower court comprehensively based on the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court regarding the assertion that a legitimate lien was held, namely, the Defendant did not commence construction works with respect to the instant land and buildings, and did not have any claim for construction cost against F accordingly, and the indirect claim for construction cost alleged by the Defendant appears to have the nature of the damage claim based on the actual nonperformance of obligations. Such damage claim and the claim for penalty alleged by the Defendant cannot be deemed as a claim arising from the instant land and buildings, and thus, cannot be deemed as a secured claim under the lien, and the Defendant’s employees from January 2012 reside in the instant building.