However, from July 15, 2014 to December 4, 2014, the Defendant, the operator of the limited partnership E, G and H conspiredd to remove dredging soil 25,364 Peru (hereinafter “the dredging soil of this case”) from July 15, 2014, thereby impairing the effectiveness of provisional disposition.

2. According to the records of this case, it seems that the defendant found the species in the storage of this case during the period specified in the facts charged and managed the storage of this case, and the defendant received the payment of aggregate from the aggregate trading company, such as I and J, and there is doubt as to whether the defendant did not take out the dredging soil of this case.

However, in full view of the following circumstances recognized by the records of the instant case, it is difficult to recognize that the shipper is the Defendant or a public contest relationship between the Defendant and H, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① On February 2, 2010, E entered into a contract with the Chungcheongnam-si to purchase dredging soil on the ground of the instant storage yard, and have the right to manage and operate the storage yard. In other words, E (the Defendant has been operating E from November 2012) entered into a contract with H on March 2013, 2013 for payment of down payment KRW 200 million for the entire dredging soil of the instant storage yard, and remaining money for appraisal.

② From March 2013, H has been selling the dredging soil in its investigative agency from around 2013.

. . . ....