However, as to the Defendants for two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.

Defendant

At the request of Defendant B, the debtor of the said auction case, and upon the request of Defendant B, made a false lien report to this court to mislead the bidder participants to pay the amount equivalent to the amount of the construction cost, and the bid price was made, Defendant B continued to operate the said D restaurant on the ground that even if the bid price was not easily made, Defendant B failed to perform the auction, and Defendant B conspired with Defendant B to continuously operate the said D restaurant.

1. On September 2, 2013, upon Defendant B’s request, Defendant A submitted a false lien report on three occasions, such as the list of crimes in attached Form No. 2, from around September 4, 2013 to December 24, 2013, when Defendant A submitted a false lien report to Defendant A, as shown in the list of crimes in attached Form No. 140, when Defendant A received a false lien report from Defendant A and submitted a false court report from September 4, 2013 to December 24, 2013, even though Defendant G representative H had not engaged in interior construction on the said real estate.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired to report the false lien in the real estate auction procedure, thereby doing so in a fraudulent way.

2. On September 2, 2013 upon Defendant B’s request, Defendant A stated that “The reported amount: KRW 140,000,000 per day ( KRW 140,000) and September 2, 2013, by using the pen in the form of the registration statement of right to retention at the original office of the said law firm, Defendant A entered “The representative H of G Co., Ltd. on September 2, 2013.”

As a result, the Defendants are in the name of G representative H, a private document related to rights and duties, a private document, for the purpose of exercising authority.