The prosecutor's appeal is dismissed.

1. The gist of the grounds of appeal was known to the Defendant by the J that G, who is the transfer of the instant lien, notified that the agreement on the transfer of the lien was null and void. Of the instant apartment, the Defendant was aware of the fact that D, M, G, and H, who is the owner of the 12 generation generation among the instant apartment, filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the lien and received a favorable judgment.

Ultimately, even though the Defendant knew that this case’s lien that was taken over from G and H was invalid, it can be recognized that the Defendant interfered with the fairness of auction by submitting a false lien report to the auction court.

Nevertheless, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts or by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Summary of the facts charged

A. The Defendant is the representative director of a corporation I (hereinafter “I”) located in Q from the former High Military of North Korea, and the J is the representative director of L Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “L”).

In July 2007, J awarded a contract for 281 households among the 293 households of the 293 units of the apartment complex E (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”) located in the Northern-gun, North Korea (hereinafter “instant apartment”) before the new construction was interrupted, and resumed the construction on May 1, 2012 and completed the construction on November 27 of the same year.

In that sense, 2 households (101, 511, 102, and 601) among the instant apartment units 12 households that were not awarded a successful bid in July 2007 (101, 511, 102, and 601) owned M, and 10 households (101, 501, and 510) owned D. However, the J completed the construction of an apartment unit owned by M and D (hereinafter “household of the instant apartment unit”) under the “written consent to change the name of the owner of the building (the written consent to the use of the building).” For the foregoing reasons, M, as well, had a claim to return unjust benefits equivalent to the construction cost.

In addition, while resumption of the instant apartment construction, J has been entrusted with the construction subcontract to G (hereinafter “G”) operated by K, and H (hereinafter “H”) operated by N, and G and H should pay the construction cost to them.