logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2014.04.02 2014고정205
경매방해
Text

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 5,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

On September 13, 2012, the Defendant indicted the Defendant as “H” at the 1stm office of Goyang-gu District Court Goyang-dong District Court’s Goyang-dong District Court’s Goyang-dong District Court’s Goyang-gu Branch Office. However, according to the records, it is obvious that it is a clerical error in C.

In relation to the case of voluntary auction against the land located in Yongsan-gu E, U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S. and U.S., U.S., U.S., U.S. under auction process, the debtor D had not been engaged in three construction works on the above land, and thus, despite the existence of a lien on the above real estate, the lien reporter was filed with the 1st official of the above support auction without knowledge of the fact that the lien was filed with the defendant, the reported amount was KRW 276,00,000, and obstructed the fair auction in the case of voluntary auction of the real estate

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police officer to I;

1. Search for auction cases, applications for lien, on-site photographs, and announcement of the exercise of lien;

1. Recording records;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to investigation reports ( telephone conversations for reference D);

1. Article 315 of the Criminal Act and Article 315 of the same Act concerning criminal facts and the choice of fines;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The grounds for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act for sentencing order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act were that although the defendant had a claim against the debtor D, this was not a claim entitled to exercise the right of retention. The crime of this case was not only prejudicial to the fair auction business by reporting the right to demand false lien, but also was an act of directly or indirectly causing damage to other interested parties, such as the creditor, etc.

arrow