The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal (misunderstanding of facts or misapprehension of legal principles) D occupied H apartment No. 801 (hereinafter “H apartment No. 801”) on behalf of the lien holder A, Seodaemun-gu Seoul, Seoul, and the Defendant did not know that the auction as to H apartment No. 801 was in progress.

Therefore, the court below found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case although the defendant's statement in the facts charged was not false testimony contrary to memory. The court below erred by misunderstanding of facts or misunderstanding of legal principles.

2. The lower court determined: (a) as D has continuously demanded that the Defendant prepare a place of residence until the Defendant would compensate for the loss incurred to an unclaimed exchange contract; (b) there was no reasonable ground to initiate unstable residence in accepting the method of exercising the right of retention on behalf of the Defendant via A; and (c) as D’s direct signature or seal on the “written confirmation (Evidence No. 140, the evidence list No. 20)”; and (d) the document confirming that D is exercising the right of retention on behalf of the Defendant separately from the above written confirmation was not prepared with respect to a document confirming that it was exercising the right of retention on behalf of the Defendant; (c) in a case where A had filed a complaint for fraud or breach of trust with respect to A, the Defendant did not state his/her name or seal that he/she would not directly use the apartment as his/her own name or seal on behalf of the Defendant; and (d) the Defendant did not state that “A had no address or seal affixed to A by 300 years or more.”