beta
Text
Defendant
A shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and imprisonment with prison labor for ten months.
However, for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.
Reasons
Punishment of the crime
Defendant
B The Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government shall lease the entire 100,000 won of deposit and 5,000,000 won of monthly rent under the name of wife E, and Defendant A shall from January 2, 2011 to the same year.
3. From January 2014, Defendant B had completed the construction of interior interior interior interior interior interior interior of the above building, and had operated the cafeteria B112 of the above building as “F” and the cafeteria B101 of the trade name as “G”, the Defendants, upon receipt of a request for the auction by the Chang Credit Cooperative from January 2014, planned to interfere with an auction by filing a false lien report even though Defendant A did not occupy the above building, or to collect the Defendant B’s construction price claim and the Defendant’s Si facilities included in the claim to exercise the right of retention in the auction and receive dividends from the auction procedure.
1. On March 21, 2014, the Defendants related to the instant case at the Seoul East Eastern District Court: (a) prepared a “report on the exercise of lien” in the name of the Defendant A stating that the Defendant A exercises a lien on the said “F” building on the claim of KRW 736,340,000 for the construction cost; (b) submitted the said court’s order to submit materials proving the possession of the Defendant A and the exercise of the lien; (c) around July 23, 2014, Defendant A was ordered to revise the said court around February 20, 2011; and (d) prepared and submitted documents, such as a written confirmation of the construction cost under the name of E, stating that he/she continues to occupy the said building until now; and (d) a false estimate and a false subcontract agreement with the construction cost in the form of KRW 736,340,00,000.
However, in fact, Defendant A is liable for the amount of KRW 100 million among the construction cost of KRW 430,000,000 to the above restaurant and call architecture.