Defendant shall be punished by a fine of five million won.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is C representative director of a corporation.

On March 25, 2016, the Defendant submitted a lien report stating that the amount reported to the Cheongju District Court Jeju District Court 53 million won was KRW 1.655 billion, with reference to the case of voluntary auction of real estate in progress as Dacheon-si, Dacheon-si, the owner of D agricultural partnership, the fact that there was no construction cost to be received from G, the representative of the said agricultural partnership, and that even without occupying the said land, as if there was a claim for construction cost equivalent to KRW 1.65 million, the Defendant did not falsely submit a lien report to the court, and submitted a lien report stating that the amount reported to the Cheongju District Court 50,000,000 won is KRW 1.655 billion, with reference to evidentiary materials, submitted a construction contract, etc. stating that the construction cost is KRW 1.655 million, with respect to the instant real estate by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of witness G;

1. A protocol concerning the examination of the accused by the prosecution (including H, I, and G part);

1. Each police statement made to H and J;

1. The civil judgment 2016 Ghana 2181

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the report on the right of retention, the current status investigation, the appraisal statement, the output of court auction information, the certified copy of the corporate registry;

1. Relevant Article 315 of the Criminal Act concerning the facts constituting an offense and Article 315 of the Selection of Punishment Act;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances as to the existence of secured claims, the fact that the Defendant reported the right of retention may be acknowledged by releasing the construction price to the extent that it does not hold a claim for construction price against D agricultural partnership (hereinafter “D”) or that it can be deemed that it constitutes a deceptive scheme.

A. When the Defendant paid the money to the construction business operator C (hereinafter “C”) to the D account, the Defendant agreed to pay the money in its name.

One of the arguments is that money between C, G or D is erroneous, and the construction is limited.