The Defendants are not guilty.

1. Facts charged;

1. Defendant B’s joint crime committed by the Defendants, around July 4, 2005, has approximately KRW 2.9 billion claims against E (E) and the above E (hereinafter “E”) that had been developing the real estate since around 2007, together with D, which acquired the ownership of the land and three lots of land and the building (hereinafter “the instant real estate”).

Around March 208, Defendant A was the representative of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) who was awarded a contract for electrical construction works, etc. from Defendant B (hereinafter “G”) operated by Defendant B around March 2008. Upon the commencement of voluntary auction on the real estate at the time of failure to pay the construction cost to construction business operators including G where E and D, etc. performed construction works on the real estate, the Defendants conspired with the amount of the claim, reported the right of retention, and had the owner acquired the ownership during the auction, in lieu of paying the construction cost by receiving the money as the price for the right of retention from the person who acquired the ownership.

Accordingly, the Defendants conspired and submitted “the report on the right to retention” to the case of voluntary auction, etc. of the instant real estate, which was pending in the Cheongju District Court Support around March 30, 2012 at the Cheongju District Court Support around 103, and (1) Defendant A, the representative of the report on the right to retention, filed a report on the right to retention to the said real estate with the six companies (I, J, K, L, M, and N), including I, six companies (I, J, K, K, M, and N), including the I, even though he was not entrusted with the report on the right to retention to the said real estate, and reported the right to retention of KRW 136,70,770 in total as if he was entrusted with the right to retention, and ② Defendant B operated.

F was aware that the F had not undertaken any construction work on the real estate and that E was a company that actually operated by the Defendant B, and therefore, it was impossible to report the lien.