The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is only limited to the report of lien on the facts charged in this case at the certified judicial scrivener office, and there was no intention to obstruct auction. The defendant's act of reporting the lien is for exercising his right to his claim and thus is for exercising his right to his claim, and is not illegal due to an act that does not go against the social norms, and thus, the judgment of the court below which convicted the defendant of

2. Determination

A. The obstruction of auction as to the assertion that there was no intention to obstruct auction refers to the use of a deceptive scheme by causing mistake, mistake, or land to the other party in order to achieve the purpose of the act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Do2221, Jun. 9, 1992). The obstruction of auction does not require an unfair result as an abstract dangerous crime, and such act includes not only an act that may legally affect the result of auction but also an act that may affect the decision-making of the person who intends to participate in auction (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7113, Dec. 21, 2006). According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the court below, the defendant does not have the right to claim construction price against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “E”), and even if he did not occupy the building G at the time of construction price reporting, the defendant's right to claim the price of the construction in question can not be acknowledged as a "right of a certified judicial scrivener of this case."