Defendant

A shall be punished by imprisonment for one year.

A. Defendant A1) misunderstanding of the facts and misapprehension of the legal principles (related to the invalidity of indication in the line of duty) ① An execution officer cannot verify the fact that the execution officer conducted the procedure by distinguishing the seized goods of this case from the type, and the publication was carried behind the calendar that could not be easily confirmed by the land.

Therefore, there was an indication of the seals or seizures, or other compulsory measures, which were lawful only with the attachment of the public notice of this case.

shall not be deemed to exist.

② At the time of Defendant A’s expansion work, the disclosure letter was still in place.

there is no evidence to consider.

③ In full view of the fact that most of the movables subject to the instant seizure were changed due to food, etc. with the lapse of time, and in the case of seizure of ordinary movables, the auction procedure was not conducted for the lapse of six months, and there was an agreement on repayment between the Defendant and R, there was no intention to nullify the indication of official duties against the Defendant A.

Nevertheless, the lower court found the Defendant guilty of this part of the facts charged, which erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2) The punishment that the lower court sentenced to Defendant A (the first instance judgment: the imprisonment of August, the suspended sentence of two years, the second instance judgment: the imprisonment of August, the suspended sentence of two years, and the community service 160 hours) is too unreasonable.

B. The sentence sentenced by the first instance court of Defendant B (unfair sentencing) to Defendant B (the imprisonment of six months and the suspended sentence of two years) is too unreasonable.

2. Prior to the judgment on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A’s ex officio decision on the grounds for appeal by Defendant A, Defendant A filed an appeal against the judgment of the court below Nos. 1 and 2, and this court decided to hold a joint hearing of the above two appeals cases.

Defendant

Article 38 of the Criminal Act is a concurrent crime in the first sentence of Article 37 of the Criminal Act for each crime of the first and second judgment against A.