Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

(A)The Defendant, a person operating a corporation of the trade name C, was operating from March 2009 by leasing and operating a factory building located in D from (State) Espia to Espia, Chungcheongnam-gun.

The victim E is awarded a successful bid of the above factory building in accordance with the real estate auction procedure of the Cheongju District Court 2010 Mata-20061 on June 13, 2011

7. He shall complete the registration of ownership transfer.

On August 201, 201, the Defendant: (a) removed one warehouse of 63 square meters, the market value of which is 1890,000,000,000 won included in the auction list, from an auction conducted in the Habnsan-gun D, Chungcheongnam-do; and (b) moved to a factory of Haban-gun F (C).

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness G;

1. Statement made by a witness H in the seventh trial records;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to document delivery concerning a compulsory auction by official auction at the Cheongju District Court 2009, 7086; and

1. Relevant Articles of the Criminal Act and Article 329 of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Judgment on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The argument: (a) I, who was an employee of the International SPP, installed the instant warehouse with private funds regardless of the foregoing company and transferred it to the Defendant; (b) the instant warehouse was not subject to auction but owned by the Defendant; (c) even if the warehouse was previously withdrawn at the time of the first auction, the Defendant thought that the instant warehouse was not included in the subject of auction; and (c) from I, who was an employee of the Defendant’s company, he would be excluded from the subject of auction because he was notified of the instant warehouse as an appraiser’s ownership.