Defendants shall be punished by a fine of 1.5 million won.

In the event that the Defendants did not pay the above fine, only 100,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

Defendant

A is a person who is engaged in the construction business under the trade name of “D” (hereinafter “D”), and Defendant B is a person who is engaged in the interior business under the trade name of “E”.

피고인들은 천안시 서 북구 F, G ‘H’ 건물과 토지에 대하여 에스케이 네트 웍스 서비스 주식회사의 신청에 따라 2013. 4. 9. 대전지방법원 천안지원 I로 임의 경매 개시 결정이 내려져 임의 경매가 진행되고 있는 사실을 알고 허위의 유치권 신고서를 제출하기로 마음먹었다.

Accordingly, around September 25, 2013, at the Daejeon District Court's 17-gil 7-gil-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Daejeon District Court's 2013, Defendant A submitted a lien report with "the lien D, reported amount of 64,00,000 won, and reporter D", and Defendant B submitted a lien report with "the lien holder E (representative B), the reported amount of 105,326,700 won, and the reporter B".

In addition, on January 10, 2014, the Saemaul Bank of Korea, a person who is the party adjacent to the said building and land, applied for a voluntary auction to the said Support J, and the Defendants filed a lawsuit to confirm the non-existence of a right of retention against the Defendants as 1976, and the Defendants continued to reside in H building on April 6, 2015, as the above support was not supported by the payment made after the completion of construction on February 7, 2013, and the Defendants continued to reside in H building on March 5, 2013.

By submitting a prepared document stating that “A lien was exercised prior to April 9, 2013, which was the date of the decision to commence the above I’s voluntary auction, by submitting the document.”

However, on April 9, 2013, the Defendants did not exercise their right of retention until the decision to commence a voluntary auction was made, and thus, the Defendants’ report of the right of retention was false.

As a result, the Defendants harmed the fairness of the voluntary auction on the said real estate by means of a deceptive scheme.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendants’ each.