The defendant of the 2017 Highest 188 case (the violation of the effectiveness of the compulsory execution of real estate) did not know at all that he owned the house, and there was no intention to impair the effectiveness of compulsory execution to the defendant.

In addition, there was no locking device at the entrance of the above house, and the defendant did not destroy it, and only the defendant entered the above house by a door opened the same as the usual book.

The sentencing (six months of imprisonment) of the lower court is too unreasonable.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court as to the assertion of mistake of facts as to the grounds for appeal, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he / she takes a dubling and dubling off, while taking a bath to a public official E in charge of the general affairs of the public service center, while taking a bath to a public official E in charge of the general affairs of the public service center.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court in 2017 High Order 188 (the point of infringement of the effectiveness of compulsory execution of real estate), the enforcement officer cancelled the possession of the instant house on August 4, 2015 and delivered the instant house to G. G after receiving the instant house, G installed locking devices on the entrance and exit, and the Defendant acknowledged the fact that the human father, around October 12, 2016, attempted to start the removal of the instant house without permission, interfered with the entry of the human father into the instant house into the instant house, and according to this, the Defendant knew of the fact that the instant house was delivered by compulsory execution on October 12, 2016, thereby impairing the effectiveness of compulsory execution on or around October 00, 2016.