A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a de facto operator of an enterprise called “C” aimed at producing and selling stone.

When the auction procedure for real estate was conducted to Changwon-gun, Chang-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, with respect to 288,596 square meters of forest E (hereinafter “the instant stone”) owned by the company D (hereinafter “D”), the Defendant, upon delegation from D, conducted the auction procedure to purchase the instant stone in the said real estate auction procedure.

On September 6, 2013, the Defendant: (a) at the Changwon District Court Branch Branch of Changwon-gun, Seoul, the Defendant: (b) was not clear whether H or G, a representative in the name of the Defendant, had claims against the instant tinsan in D with respect to the instant tinsan; (c) was prepared by D with evidentiary documents, such as a false statement of payment, in order to prevent other persons than G from purchasing the instant tin in the said real estate auction procedure; and (d) reported the false lien as if H or G had claims worth KRW 799,22,60 in total in D.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the fairness of auction by making a false lien report through fraudulent means in the auction procedure of real estate discretion.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of a witness I;

1. Statement made by the police to J;

1. Application of respective Acts and subordinate statutes, such as a lien report, waiver of a lien, etc.;

1. Article 315 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Selection of imprisonment;

1. Article 62 (1) of the Criminal Act on the stay of execution (The following circumstances considered in favor of the reasons for sentencing);

1. Determination on the assertion by the defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order

1. The assertion H actually has a claim in relation to the instant tinsan, and G also acquires part of the claim from H and holds the actual claim in D. Thus, the Defendant’s act of reporting a lien in the name of H and G based on each of the above claims does not constitute an offense of interference with auction.

2. Determination on the debtor.