Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

Punishment of the crime

On March 18, 2013, the Defendants (hereinafter “instant real estate”) filed a motion for voluntary auction with the Incheon District Court G, which was the creditor, against the Jung-gu Incheon District Court E and 20 parcels owned by Defendant B (hereinafter “instant real estate”). In fact, even though Defendant A did not perform the construction work of hot spring development in the instant real estate, or paid expenses equivalent to the amount reported to the court, the Defendants were willing to receive the amount equivalent to the amount of the false amount of the construction cost by filing a false lien report, or to gain profits by receiving the amount equivalent to the amount of the false amount of the construction cost, or by raising the value of the real estate based on the said construction.

Accordingly, on April 4, 2014, Defendant A reported the right of retention as secured claim the false claim for construction cost (a reasonable amount of KRW 1,615,730,027) at the auction of the Incheon District Court located in Nam-dong, Incheon District Court of Law.

As a result, the Defendants conspired to report the right of retention in a fraudulent way in the voluntary auction procedure, thereby harming the fairness of auction.

Summary of Evidence

1. Some statements made by the prosecutor in the suspect interrogation protocol against the Defendants

1. The first police suspect interrogation protocol against Defendant A, which contains some statements;

1. Each police statement of H;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the head of a complaint (including attached data related to auction records), search for auction cases (I), and search for cases in Supreme Court Na (U.S. District Court 2013 group 4);

1. The pertinent Article of the Criminal Act and Articles 315 and 30 of the Criminal Act regarding criminal facts, the Defendants’ assertion of imprisonment and their defense counsel, and their defense counsel’s assertion and determination. Defendant A actually performed hot spring development work on the land owned by Defendant B from around 2005 to 2006, and Defendant B had claim amounting to KRW 1,615,730,027 against Defendant B. However, the following circumstances can be acknowledged by each evidence duly adopted and investigated by this Court.