All the judgment below is reversed.

Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for eight months.

Of the facts charged in the instant case, Defendant A.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Defendant A, B1) misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, P andO’s lien report is not false, but is false in household affairs.

Even though Defendant A and B did not contain a public invitation, the lower court found Defendant A and B guilty of each of the instant facts charged due to mistake of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine, and committed an unlawful act of finding Defendant A and B guilty of obstruction of auction due to the reporting of lien by P andO.

2) The guilty of this part of the facts charged against the sentencing unfair domestic affairs

Even if the court below's sentence imposed on Defendant A and B (Defendant A: one year of imprisonment, and 10 months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

B. In full view of the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor 1 of the facts and the misapprehension of the legal doctrine, the Defendants’ indictments against G Co., Ltd., written indictments, written indictments for modification of indictments, and the judgment of the court below on the amendment of indictments, all of which

(G) Although it was fully convicted of the Defendant A of the obstruction of auction due to reporting of lien and of the violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Economic Crimes (affort) with respect to Defendant A, the lower court committed an illegal act that acquitted the Defendant of this part of the facts charged due to misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal doctrine.

2) The sentence sentenced by the lower court to Defendant A and B is too unhued and unfair.

2. Determination

A. We examine ex officio the judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal by the defendant A, B, and prosecutor as to the obstruction of each auction against the defendants in the judgment below.

In the first instance trial, among the facts charged in the instant case, the prosecutor applied for changes in the indictment with respect to the Defendants as stated in Paragraph (1) below, and this court permitted it, and the part of the judgment of the court below as to the obstruction of each auction against the Defendants cannot be maintained any more due to changes in the subject of the judgment.

However, even if there is such an ex officio reversal, Defendant A, B.