All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A - The sentence of the lower court against an unfair defendant in sentencing (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for a period of ten months, two years of probation, and 120 hours of community service order) is excessively unreasonable.

B. Defendant B-misunderstanding of facts, misunderstanding of legal principles, misunderstanding of sentencing 1), misunderstanding of legal principles (the sole charge part of the Defendant) and reporting of the Defendant’s lien was based on the payment claim based on the contract for the creation of art works concluded on March 15, 2012 between the Defendant and the J Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “J”), and the above claim is not a false claim.

B) Even if the claim for the above price is not recognized, the Defendant did not intend to interfere with auction because he did not report the fact to the court on the art works installed by him, but did not report the lien, recognizing that the reported content is false.

C) Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged is erroneous in finding facts erroneous and understanding the legal principles as to the obstruction of auction.

2) Even if the facts charged in the instant case against the Defendant are found guilty, the lower court’s punishment (two years of imprisonment with prison labor for ten months, two years of probation, and 120 hours of community service order) is excessively unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below as to Defendant B’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, the court below’s judgment convicting the Defendant of obstruction of auction due to a single crime among the facts charged in the instant case is just and acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the obstruction of auction or by misapprehending the legal principles as to

1) As to the art works installed by the Defendant, the Seoul Central District Court 2015 Gohap 575131, Seoul High Court 2016Na 2016Na 2068244 stated “the lawsuit for confirmation of the absence of lien” is to complete the art works installed by the Defendant separately from the building of this case and attach them to the wall, etc. of the instant building.