beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Summary of grounds for appeal;
A. The Defendant is the representative director of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”), and E had a claim for construction cost that was not received while constructing a multi-household house “K” (hereinafter “K”) on the land of Pyeongtaek-si F, and even B had a claim for construction cost that was not received in relation to the building, the Defendant filed a lien on each of the above claims as the secured claim at the auction procedure.
In addition, since K building was sold at a higher price than the minimum sale price in the auction procedure, there was no result of interference with auction by the defendant's act.
B. The sentence of the lower court’s sentencing (two months of imprisonment and two years of suspended sentence) is too heavy.
2. Determination
A. 1) Considering that the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court below comprehensively adopted and examined, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant’s claim for construction price of E is false and E does not occupy the K building, and there is no lien. A) The Defendant asserted that there was a claim for the payment of construction price of E in the auction procedure, which was not claimed at the first sale date, and that there was a claim for the payment of construction price of E which was not received at least eight days after the date of the first sale, and submitted a report on the right of retention.
B) The Defendant received KRW 200 million from B in return for selling one of the K buildings in lots, and used it as the construction cost of the K building. At the auction procedure, the Defendant falsely asserted that there was a claim for the construction cost of KRW 200 million which was not received by B on behalf of B, and submitted a lien registration statement, but was excluded from the auction procedure. (C) The Defendant stated in the investigative agency that the Defendant actually performed the construction work, and the Defendant
(Evidence No. 57). D. The Defendant did not submit material that paid the cost of construction KRW 180,000,000 to E, asserting that the Defendant ordered the construction of the K building to E, and the Defendant and E.