The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of appeal, thereby convicting all of the facts charged.

A. As to the part on the forgery of private documents and the uttering of the above investigation document, the Defendant, upon obtaining D’s permission from the person under the name of the contract.

B. As to the obstruction of auction, the Defendant submitted a construction contract which is somewhat different from the actual one, since the Defendant had a construction cost claim or equivalent claim for C building, and accordingly, submitted a construction contract.

Even if there was no intention to interfere with auction, there was no intention.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the evidence duly admitted after the examination of evidence, the Defendant and D are recognized that the Defendant and D prepared a contract for the removal of the building inside C, even if they did not enter into a contract for the removal of the building inside the building, to obtain a loan from a financial institution on October 20, 2013.

On January 2014, the Defendant made D’s seal while preparing a contract for removal works with similar contents.

D In full view of the statements of the investigative agency (Evidence No. 294 of the evidence record), records of E’s telephone recording, witness’s legal testimony, etc., the defendant prepared the second contract with D’s permission.

shall not be deemed to exist.

The court below is justified in finding the defendant guilty of the forgery of private documents and the uttering of the above investigation documents.

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the Defendant did not enter into a contract with D, and the second contract was made voluntarily.

After being aware of these circumstances, the Defendant asserted the claim for construction cost as a secured claim, and reported the lien.

This has harmed the fairness of auction by "defensive means", and the defendant's intention is also sufficiently recognized.

Other claim for construction cost or equivalent claim claimed by the defendant is not actually nonexistent or even if there exists it, the defendant seems to have falsely neglected the content and amount.

The court below found the defendant guilty of obstruction of auction.