207 Highest 4235 Auction interference and attempted fraud

1. ○○;

2. Ma○○;

nan

Attorney Lee In-bok (Presiding Justice)

Law Firm (For the purpose of Defendant Jeong-○)

June 20, 2008

Defendant ○○ is punished by imprisonment with prison labor for six months, and by imprisonment for ten months.

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

Criminal facts

Defendant ○○ is the representative director of ○○, a corporation located in Gyeyang-gu, Incheon, and Defendant ○○ is a person engaged in the real estate consulting business under the trade name of ○○○○. The above building was in progress of the voluntary auction procedure under Incheon District Court Decision 2006Ma7299 upon filing an application for auction on January 25, 2006 from the Industrial Bank of Korea, which is the creditor of ○○○○, a corporate creditor.

1. Obstruction of the auction by the Defendants

The Defendants: (a) around August 2006, at the office of ○ building in the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Incheon IT; and (b) notwithstanding the fact that ○○○ Co., Ltd. did not have performed the interior construction in the above ○○ building, the Defendants drafted a false contract as if ○○, the representative director of ○○○ Co., Ltd. and ○○○ Co., Ltd. were actually engaged in construction by concluding a contract as if ○○ had actually been actually engaged in construction; and (c) accordingly, recruited to additionally receive an amount equivalent to the amount of false construction payment from the successful bidders by filing

Accordingly, the Defendants filed a lien report with the above content between ○○ and ○○ Co., Ltd. in the above temporary office at the above temporary office with the false content as mentioned above, and filed a lien report with the Incheon District Court located in Nam-dong, Incheon, Nam-gu, Incheon, on September 27, 2006, on the obligation for the payment of the interior work (an amount equivalent to 450,000,000) as the secured obligation.

As a result, the Defendants conspired in collusion to report a false lien in the above voluntary auction procedure, thereby hindering fair competition in forming a reasonable price.

2. Defendants’ attempted fraud

After exercising a false lien as stated in the above paragraph (1), the Defendants solicited the successful bidder to additionally receive the amount equivalent to the amount of the construction price from the successful bidder, and reported the lien to the Incheon District Court on the obligation for the construction price as the secured obligation.

On October 2006, in order to occupy ○ building as if Defendant 1 exercised the right of possession based on the lien in accordance with the above public offering agreement with ○○○○○, Defendant 1 had Kim○ and ○○○○ used each floor of ○○ building as store, warehouse, etc. in order to occupy ○○ building.

Defendant Jeong-○, around December 2006, had legitimate lien on the grounds that ○○○○, the successful bidder of the building, occupied the building in the above ○○ building, asked for the reason that the victim’s door ○○, the successful bidder of the building, was holding in possession of the building, and the right of retention was changed to KRW 200 million in return for the withdrawal of the right of retention. However, even though he received money by means of false words, it did not appear that the construction contract was false and did not have been attempted.

Summary of Evidence

1. The legal statement of the defendant Lee ○;

1. Each legal statement of the witness’s door-○, Kim○, and Kim○○;

1. Legal statement of ○○○○○○, a witness (as to Defendant 1’s ○○);

1. Examination protocol of the suspect about ○○○ (including the part concerning Kim○○’s statement);

1. Each police suspect interrogation protocol on Kim○-○ and Park○-○;

1. Each police protocol on door-○○ and Kim○○;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to each real estate register, written application for a report on right and demand for distribution, written application for lease on a deposit basis, written contract for establishing a right of lease on a deposit basis, written contract for lease on a real estate, written report of lien

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Articles 315, 352, 347(1), and 30 of the Criminal Code

1. Aggravation for concurrent crimes;

Articles 37 (former part), 38 (1) 2, and 50 of the Criminal Act

1. Suspension of execution (Defendant Lee ○);

The crime of this case committed by the defendants on the grounds of sentencing of Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Code is a crime that harms the fairness of the auction of the court by reporting the false lien, and furthermore, attempts to acquire large amount of money from the successful bidder by borrowing false lien, and the nature of the crime is very heavy. Thus, the punishment corresponding to the nature of the crime is inevitable for the defendants.

However, the defendant Lee Jong-○, upon the advice of the defendant Jung-○, committed the crime of this case according to the advice of the defendant Jung-○, there are circumstances to consider the circumstances, and later the defendant's mistake is divided, and the execution of imprisonment is suspended in consideration of the circumstances such as the fact that the defendant's punishment is not imposed. The defendant Jeong-○, a person engaged in real estate consulting business, who was led to the above false lien report, shall be sentenced to the same punishment as the order in light of the fact that there is no misunderstanding while denying all of the crimes even though the above false lien report was led.

Judges