The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In this case, the illegality of the indictment procedure is unlawful since the indictment should be dismissed on the ground that the case constitutes “where a prosecutor is not subject to a disposition of non-prosecution regarding the same case” under Article 69(3)5 of the Rules on the Affairs of the Prosecutors’ Office.

The public prosecution should be dismissed in accordance with Article 327 (2) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

B. In fact, the Defendant, not his own ownership, did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles, and the Defendant committed each of the expenses indicated in the lien report by installing and planting, and continuously occupying the instant land and temple buildings, and thus, constitutes a legitimate lien holder.

Even if the lien is not recognized under the legal principles, the fairness of the auction was not infringed on by the defendant's act, and the defendant did not have the intention to interfere with the auction.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles or by misapprehending the legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

(c)

The punishment of the court below (6 months of imprisonment, 2 years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The lower court rejected the defense counsel’s assertion that the prosecution procedure of this case is unlawful on the ground that the case subject to the existing non-prosecution disposition and the decision to dismiss an application for adjudication was filed against the Defendant on charges of fraud and obstruction of auction, and that the content and the victim of deception are different from the facts charged of this case, and that there is no new evidence regarding the obstruction of auction, and thus, it cannot be viewed as the same case.

The judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and this part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

B. Whether the Defendant’s mistake of facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (1) is recognized as a lien or not.