A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The defendant is the representative of the construction company Co., Ltd.

On March 5, 2015, the Defendant filed a lien report with the Seoul Central District Court civil execution by mail to the Seoul Central District Court, stating that the Defendant was unable to receive KRW 410,000,000 from the cost of repair works for underground parking lots of “Seoul E building” and the toilet construction works, and filed a lien report.

However, the defendant did not acquire the right of retention due to the lack of construction work.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the fairness of auction by fraudulent means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement made by the police with regard to F;

1. A lien report and a certified copy of registry;

1. Investigative reports (data submitted to victims), and the decision of the court related to false lien;

1. A report on investigation (Submission of data by an accuser), a report on the date of examination, records on search for auction cases, a lien report (G), and a description of goods sold;

1. On-site photographs, such as the investigation report (Attachment of on-site photographs), attached underground parking lots and boiler rooms of each floor;

1. A copy of the contract for the comprehensive management service (E building) of the building (E building) is changed to the effect that the Defendant did not make a false report of lien because the construction as stated in the facts charged was actually executed.

However, according to the evidence duly admitted and examined, the defendant's defense counsel cannot be accepted, since it is sufficiently recognized that the defendant did not perform the above construction work, considering the following circumstances.

First, the defendant submitted a standard contract for private construction works, tax invoice, promissory note, etc. as data for the above construction works, but it can be prepared later, and it is difficult to see that the photographs submitted by the defendant are also prior to the construction site executed by the defendant.

Rather, the Defendant had a construction work that requires construction cost of KRW 410 million.

However, there is no reason to find out the claim for the construction cost against H, and it is worth KRW 400 million.