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

The Defendant owned a total of 15 goods, such as a saw machine, showling machine, scambling, line, locking, locking, tideing, depositing, 3 strawing machine, 4 string machine, small presses, and a deposit set, which are operated by the Defendant located in Ssung-si, in total, 4,400,000 won in market value.

On December 17, 2013, the execution officer E of Suwon District Court decided to recommend the execution of the court of Suwon District Court in the place of the above dispute settlement agreementD, the execution officer of Suwon District Court to seize the above articles and attach attachment marks to the articles upon delegation of the execution of creditor F.

On May 16, 2014, the Defendant transferred the items seized to Suwon City G with the approval of the enforcement officer in charge of Suwon District Court, and kept them, without obtaining the approval of the enforcement officer or creditor on November 2014, the Defendant transferred the objects attached with the above seizure indication to H’s factory at the time of Sinung-si, in order for his own land to be used free of charge.

Accordingly, the defendant has harmed the utility of the attachment indication that public officials performed in relation to their duties by other means.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. Application of the receipt, inspection records of seized articles, list of seizure, and protocol of seizure of tangible property;

1. Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act applicable to the relevant criminal facts and Article 140 of the choice of punishment;

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. The reason for sentencing under Article 62-2 of the Criminal Code of the Social Service Order is that the market price of the goods, which the defendant has impaired the utility of the attachment indication, exceeds KRW 40 million, and that most of the seized creditors have not been recovered from damage up to now.

However, the defendant recognized his mistake and reflected his mistake, and the crime of this case may be taken into account in terms of its circumstances.