B. Attempted Fraud

Residential Busan Jin-gu 0 Dong

【Special Metropolitan City, Gyeongnam-gun 00

2.(a)(b) Park 00, and non-permanent

Residential Gyeongnam Development Group 00

10 7 10 7

Law Firm Jeong, Attorney Kim Gi (for the purpose of defendant 1, 200)

Attorney Lee Jae-ho (for the defendant Park Jae-ho)

1. Defendant 1’s obstruction of auction of the instant building: (a) newly constructed 2nd underground floor and accommodation and neighborhood living facilities (hereinafter “the instant building”) on the ground of Busan O Daegu 000, and completed registration of preservation of ownership on July 9, 2004 under his wife’s name. On December 20, 2006, at the request of the ○○○ Agricultural Cooperatives, the voluntary auction of the instant building (the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch 2006) was commenced; (b) upon receiving a bid on November 3, 2008, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Building’s bid price for the instant building, the Defendants were awarded a contract for the instant construction from the ○○○○○○○○ Building, a collective collateral security company, to receive ownership of the said construction from the ○○○○○○○○ Construction Work.

A. Accordingly, on August 13, 2009, even though the construction cost that was not paid by Defendant ○○○ was KRW 100,000,000, Defendant Park Jong-○ reported the right of retention by having the Busan District Court’s branch branch branch, where the auction of this case was in progress, as the unpaid construction cost, KRW 1,216,00,000.

B. In lieu of receiving the unpaid construction cost of KRW 440,00,000 from Defendant 1, 00, the ○○○○ filed a lien on August 13, 2009, with the payment of the construction cost of KRW 440,000 as the unpaid construction cost without deducting the operating income from the first floor and the second floor of the instant building. However, on August 13, 2009, the Busan District Court reported the lien as the payment of the construction cost of KRW 173,00,000 as the unpaid construction cost. The ○○○ reported the lien on August 13, 2009, even though the construction cost of the construction cost of KRW 137,00,000 which was not paid from Defendant ○○○○, which was the payment of the construction cost of KRW 173,000,000 from the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch as the unpaid construction cost.

D. In lieu of receiving the payment of KRW 148,00,000 for the unpaid construction work from Defendant 1,000, the highest ○○○○ operated a singing room with the delivery of the third floor of the instant building, and thus, the operating income should be deducted from the construction cost. However, on August 13, 2009, the Busan District Court reported the lien of all KRW 148,00,000 as the unpaid construction cost, without deducting it from the Busan District Court’s branch support.

E. Gamb○ filed a lien on August 13, 2009, with the construction cost of KRW 108,000,000, which was not paid by Defendant ○○○○○, as the unpaid construction cost of KRW 76,000 from the Busan District Court’s East Branch Branch, the Busan District Court reported the lien on August 13, 200.

As a result, the Defendants conspired with 00, Gao, maximum 00, and GaoO, thereby doing the fairness of auction by fraudulent means.

2. Defendant 1’s attempted fraud

On July 28, 2010, Defendant Park ○ stated that, in the coffee shop where it is impossible to know the trade name in the Busan-gu document, Defendant Park Jong-○ would receive a written waiver of the right of retention from the person who reported the right of retention on the building of this case if Defendant Park Jong-○ would receive 800,000,000 won from the victim New ○○ (the age of 40) of the company, which was examining the application for the purchase of the building of this case at the auction of this case, at the coffee shop. However, even if Defendant Park Jong-○ did not receive money from the victim, he did not have the intention or ability to accept the written waiver of the right of retention from the person who reported the right of retention on the building of this case. Nevertheless, Defendant Park Jong-○ attempted to receive money from the victim by means of falsity, but the victim did not have been able to do so with the wind that did not pay the above money.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ respective legal statements

1. Statement made by the defendant bO in the second trial records;

1. Statements made by Defendant ○○ in the third protocol of the trial;

1. Partial statement of the suspect examination protocol of the prosecution concerning 00;

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol on ○○○, ○○○, and ○○○;

1. Each police protocol on the new ○○○ and Kim○○;

1. Each report on lien;

1. A certified copy of each real estate register;

Application of Statutes

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

A. Defendant ○○: Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act (a)

B. Defendant Park ○-○: Articles 315, 30 (Interference with Auction), 347 (1), and 352 (Attempted Crime) of the Criminal Act

1. Selection of punishment;

Each Imprisonment Selection

1. Aggravation of concurrent crimes (Defendant 200 Ga);

In light of the fact that the instant building was awarded at a price lower than the market price due to the fact that the creditors of the development company, including the 000 bank Co., Ltd., a mortgagee, are highly likely to not fully repaid and the damage still remains, the sentence of imprisonment is to be imposed on the Defendants by taking into account the fact that the report of lien filed by the Defendants on the grounds of sentencing under the former part of Article 37, Article 38(1)2, and Article 50 of the Criminal Act is an exaggerated report of lien.

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.