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.

The Defendant owned 30 items, such as drying machine, in the operation of the Defendant in Ischeon-si, B.

On May 19, 2016, the execution officer D attached the said goods in the above C with the execution entrusted by creditors E, and attached a provisional attachment mark on the said goods by the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure of movable properties in Suwon District Court No. 2016Ka 1136 Ka, Suwon District Court.

However, between May 19, 2016 and September 13:10, 2016, the Defendant removed a provisional seizure mark attached to the goods or made it unclear the location of the goods as shown in the list of crimes in the attached Form.

As a result, the Defendant damaged the attachment indication that a public official performed in relation to his duties and harmed the utility thereof.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

1. A complaint filed by E;

1. Reports on provisional seizure of tangible movables, those on seizure of tangible movables, and those on inspection;

1. Statement protocol with respect to E;

1. A criminal investigation report (Submission of evidentiary data by a complainant);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes governing the provisional seizure site;

1. Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act, and the choice of punishment for the crime;

1. The former part of Article 37 of the Criminal Act, and Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the same Act, which aggravated concurrent crimes;

1. The reason for sentencing under Article 62(1) of the Act on the Suspension of Execution appears to have led to the instant crime in bad faith, and the motive for the crime, the amount of claims that the creditors have not repaid to the creditors at the time, etc. are disadvantageous circumstances.

However, there are favorable circumstances such as the fact that the complainants of this case are against the Si and the fact that the complainants of this case fully pay back their obligations to E.

In this context, the sentencing conditions of Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the fact that the defendant's age, sexual conduct, environment, and complainant E, are subject to separate criminal punishment due to fraud, etc., shall be determined as per the disposition.