The Defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment of this case is publicly notified.

1. The facts charged reveal that the Defendant had no right of retention on the part of the Defendant, even though he knows that there was no right of retention on the part of the Defendant since he received only the claim for construction cost from E, the actual construction business operator of the above building, and did not transfer the right of possession of the above building from the victim D to construct a new building or to construct a new building in order to do so by the victim D in the Gangwon-do. However, in the court auction procedure, the Defendant had been aware of the fact that he did not have a right of retention on the part of the Defendant, while reporting a false right of retention and lowering the minimum sale price by reporting a false right of retention on the part of the construction business operator.

Based on the notice of assignment of claim amount of KRW 370 million and KRW 36,324,411, the Defendant: (a) around September 7, 2012, based on the notice of assignment of claim amount of KRW 36,324,411, the Defendant: (b) reported that, with respect to the compulsory auction of the above building at the Youngcheon District Court’s Young-gu branch office located in the Young-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City F, Gangwon District Court’s Young-gu Office on September 7, 2012, the Defendant newly constructed the subject real estate in the lien of the report on the right of retention, but (c) reported that, with respect to the compulsory auction of the original real estate that he/she had to hold as the debtor and the owner of the said party, A

1. The reported amount shall be three hundred million won (370,000,000),

2. On September 7, 2012, the date when the loan was drawn up, 36,324,411, 36,000,000 won (36,324,411), stating that “The creditor A and the debtor D” were false, and submitted a false report on the right of retention to an auction employee who was unaware of the fact.

Accordingly, the defendant made a false declaration of lien in the above voluntary auction procedure so that fair competition in forming a reasonable price may be impeded.