beta
Text
Defendants shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.
However, the above sentence against Defendant A for a period of two years from the date this judgment became final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
On October 20, 2017, A was sentenced to one year of suspension of the execution of imprisonment with labor for interference with auction at the Seoul Central District Court on June, 2017 and the judgment became final and conclusive on October 28, 2017.
Defendant
A is a person engaged in construction business, Defendant B is a person who owns one fifth of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C building, Defendant B was a person who held one fifth of the share, and Defendant B was a compulsory auction procedure for the said one fifth of the share of C building at the Seoul Central District Court on December 17, 2013, and Defendant A was established, if he reported to Defendant A as if he had a lien on C building, and received distribution as if he had a lien on C building.
On March 5, 2015, Defendant A submitted a false lien report as he did not receive KRW 410,000,000 of the cost of underground parking lots and toilets of C building from Seoul Central District Court around March 5, 2015, even though he was not the lien holder of C building.
Defendant A continued to engage in the act as if the lien holder of the C Building D was the interest lessee, and Defendant A leased the said D subparagraph to another person and divided it with the deposit for lease. Defendant A entered into a lease agreement with the victim E and F for KRW 45 million on February 2, 2016, stating that “I would allow the lessee to lease C Building D under the same conditions as I talk to the owner of the building,” and Defendant B entered into the lease agreement with the victim E and F for the said subparagraph up to the lease term of KRW 45 million on March 3, 2018, while Defendant B entered into the lease agreement with the victims and the said subparagraph as if the owner of the building was authorized to lease the said D.
However, in fact, Defendant B had the above C Building.