A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment with prison labor for not more than ten months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant planned to construct and sell the 4th floor multi-household housing, which is 14 households, in the name of C, on the two parcels of land owned by C and D at the time of so-called purchase in the auction procedure.

(1) On March 201, the Defendant agreed with G to have the profits from the construction and sale of the above multi-household house. On or around the 24th of the same month, the Defendant entered into a sales contract with the above E and the above F land as the buyer, and entered into a sales contract with the above C and the above D and F land as the buyer. On the same day, the purchaser entered into a sales contract with the above C and the above D and F land as the above G, and the Defendant paid various construction charges with the above loan under the name of C / Myeon by borrowing an urban residential housing fund.

On December 11, 2012, the Defendant, at the request of creditors I, had been urged to report a false lien upon the commencement of the compulsory auction procedure to the Goyang Branch District Court J in order to support the creditor I.

On April 18, 2013, the Defendant prepared a lien report stating that in relation to the compulsory auction case of the above real estate, the Defendant has a right claim of KRW 350 million in relation to the above real estate in the Goyang-dong District Court's Goyang-gu District Court's Goyang-gu District Court's Goyang-gu, Yongsan-gu, Incheon-si, and submitted an application for the report of the right and the demand for distribution (house lease) to the above court that he is residing in the above multi-household 304, and the above multi-household 300,000 won in monthly rent

However, as the actual owner of the above multi-household house, the defendant was not a lien holder, but a lessee of the above multi-household house was not a legitimate tenant.

Accordingly, the defendant harmed the fairness of auction by means of fraudulent means as above.

Summary of Evidence

1..