The judgment of the court below is reversed.

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

The above fine shall not be paid by the defendant.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. It was true that the defendant misunderstanding the fact that he made a written waiver of the right of retention to a mutual savings bank. However, the defendant did not receive approximately KRW 17.6 billion for the construction price of the existing detached house and hospital building subject to the right of retention. Among them, since he collected the above amount and reported the right of retention only for KRW 10.8 billion remaining after deducting KRW 6.9 billion for loans to the mutual savings bank, the defendant did not have intention to interfere with auction, and the progress of auction was harmed.

shall not be deemed to exist.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

B. The sentence sentenced by the lower court to the Defendant (an amount of KRW 3 million) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. Before determining the grounds for appeal by the Defendant’s ex officio, the Defendant was sentenced to one year of imprisonment for a violation of the Illegal Check Control Act by this court on July 5, 2012, and the judgment becomes final and conclusive on January 25, 2013. Since the obstruction of auction as stated in the judgment of the court below is in the concurrent relationship between the crime of violating the Illegal Check Control Act, which became final and conclusive and the crime of violating the Criminal Act after Article 37 of the Criminal Act, the sentence shall be determined after examining whether to reduce or exempt punishment, taking into account the equity between the case where the judgment is to be rendered at the same time under Article 39(1) of the Criminal Act, and in this respect, the judgment of the court below was no longer maintained.

However, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to a trial by this court, and this is examined.

B. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s assertion of mistake of facts was identical to that of the above facts, and the lower court rejected the above assertion in its reasoning. In light of the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment, except for deletion of the first or sixth parts among the judgment below’s 4 pages 1, and 6, is reversed.