The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant, as an actual operator of F Co., Ltd. (F) and the actual operator of F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter F) acquired a lien in order to secure the claim for the construction cost. However, the Defendant reported a lien in the name of F Co., Ltd. and three others.

shall not be deemed to have reported a false lien.

B. The sentence of the lower court’s unfair sentencing (an amount of KRW 4 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the original court, D is the representative director of the Defendant’s father. F is the actual operator of the Defendant, but the Defendant: (a) acquired the ownership of the gas station land and building located in Dongbcheon-si on August 21, 2012; (b) conducted soil contamination removal, pipeline construction, remodelling construction, etc. (hereinafter “the instant construction”); and (c) around May 2014, when a voluntary auction procedure was commenced with the U.S. district court for the said gas station land and building, the Defendant had the right to file a report on the lien with the purport that “F (the State) and three other parties have the right to claim construction cost KRW 70 million against D, the debtor-owner,” on October 29, 2014.

B. In light of the following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the original trial, the above lien report by the Defendant was false and thereby, the Defendant was fair in auction by deceptive means.

The decision is judged.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts or misapprehension of legal principles is acceptable.

① At the time of reporting the right to retention, the Defendant: (a) ordered D to “F and three other parties,” the removal of soil contamination, etc. causing construction cost of KRW 700 million; and (b) submitted a self-contract on June 30, 2013, to the effect that D awarded the contract.