The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant 1’s misapprehension of the legal principles (as to interference with one’s auction on May 7, 2017), although the Defendant submitted a false lien report, etc. at the Cheongju District Court-funded H real estate auction procedure (hereinafter “auction procedure of this case”) with respect to the building E (hereinafter “the building of this case”), in such a case, the building of this case was awarded a successful bid at a price lower than the previous price by neglecting the obligation to sufficiently examine the report and documentary evidence, etc. to determine whether the right of retention on the building of this case is recognized. Ultimately, the result of the obstruction of auction in the auction procedure of this case was derived from insufficient examination by the court of auction, and thus, the Defendant interfered with the auction of this case, or there was a criminal intent to interfere with the auction of the Defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

2) The lower court’s sentence (6 months of imprisonment) against an unfair defendant in sentencing is too unreasonable.

B. The lower court’s sentence against the Defendant by the Prosecutor is too unhued and unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. We examine the defendant's argument of misunderstanding the legal principles. The "act of impairing the fairness of auction" of the obstruction of auction includes not only the act of determining the auction price but also the act of harming the lawful and fair competition methods, and the crime does not require that the unfair result as an abstract dangerous offender actually appeared (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do7113, Dec. 21, 2006). Thus, insofar as the defendant committed an act that is likely to undermine fair competition in the decision of successful bid price of the building of this case by submitting a false lien report by submitting a false lien report, it is reasonable to deem that the obstruction of auction is established.

Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

B. Determination of the unfair argument of sentencing by the Defendant and the Prosecutor