2015 Highest 2555 Auction Interference

Maximum ① (62 years old, remaining) Operation of the Company

Accommodation-si

[Reference domicile-si]

Duties Enforcement Decree ( Prosecutions) and Jeon Soo-young (Public Trial)

Law Firm Han-soo, Attorney Kim-hee, and the highest class

March 16, 2016

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for not less than six months.

except that the execution of the above sentence shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Criminal facts

The defendant is a person who operates dump engineering corporation and dump&C corporation in the name of the wife.

On March 2008, the Defendant entered into a design service for installing a bridge and a retaining wall on the ground (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate”) of the 955 square meters of rivers, Gamb-si, Gamb-si, Gamb-si, 2008, and entered into a contract for construction works around November 2008, and completed the construction work including defect repair from the end of February 2009 to March 201.

The Defendant held a claim amounting to KRW 50 million among the above design service charges of KRW 650 million and the construction cost of KRW 4660 million, which was paid KRW 500 million by ParkB. However, ParkB sold this real estate and paid KRW 510 million, but did not seek special recovery of the claim.

on December 7, 2012, on the basis of a claim of 400 million won against ParkB in the name of Si KimD, ACC created a collateral security with a maximum debt amount of 500 million won against the real estate. On February 28, 2014, ParkB filed an application for an auction with the Suwon District Court on February 28, 2014, who did not pay the loan money, and this case Dongdong-dong.

The appraised value was determined in 596, 875, 000 won as a result of the appraisal on mountain.

Although the Defendant did not keep the right of retention on the instant real estate because he did not meet the occupancy requirements, at that time, installed one container on the ground of the instant real estate, and on May 19, 2014, the Defendant claimed a right of retention of 460 million won in the name of knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knife knif

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

Application of Statutes

1. Suspension of execution;

Article 62(1) of the Criminal Act

Reasons for conviction

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, it is reasonable to view that the defendant has harmed the public auction of the real estate by submitting a report of right, as stated in the facts constituting a crime, although it is not possible to claim a lien on the real estate.

A. The Defendant stated in the prosecution that “after the completion of the construction of the instant real estate, ParkB sold the instant real estate and gave payment of service and construction cost, and did not take any particular legal measures” (this investigation record 1 - 46 pages).

B. The report on the investigation of the current status of real estate prepared as of April 4, 2014 in the course of the voluntary auction on the real estate was written on the real estate as of April 4, 201, that there are two containers and portable toilets on the real estate surface of this case, and it is difficult to view that the above container, etc. was installed by the Defendant in light of the Defendant’s prosecutorial statement as seen earlier.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant stated at the prosecution that “only a container was taken on the instant real estate, and what was no matter to be taken,” and even if the Defendant was taking a container on the instant real estate, it is difficult to view that the Defendant occupied the instant real estate while exercising the right of fright solely on such circumstance.

D. The Defendant, with the knowledge that the auction procedure had been commenced on the real estate, was delayed after receiving advice from a certified judicial scrivener with respect to the commencement of the auction procedure, put a banner on the entrance gate, and submitted a letter to the court on May 19, 2014, stating that he/she is entitled to exercise the right of retention, due to the non-payment of the civil construction cost. The Defendant, if so, was aware that he/she could not accept the claim of the right of retention on the real estate at the time, at least dolusis.

Reasons for sentencing

[Scope of Recommendation Form]

Type 1 (General Auction, Bidding Obstruction) Basic Area (from June to one year)

【Determination of Sentence】

The sentence shall be imposed as ordered in consideration of the background and method of the Defendant’s crime, the degree of interference with the auction due to such act, the circumstances after the commission of the Defendant (this real estate appears to have increased a considerable amount of value through the Defendant’s work, but it was sold to the Defendant KimD in the above auction procedure), the Defendant’s reflective attitude, and all other factors of sentencing as shown in the records and arguments.

Judge Lee Jae-soo