If the defendant does not pay the above fine, KRW 100,000.

The Defendant: (a) around August 4, 2015, the enforcement officer D, affiliated with the Incheon District Court Branch, attached 13 million won of the current market price and attached 13 million won of the relevant machines, despite the fact that D was the enforcement officer for the actual operation of Defendant E located in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, and received the creditor Co., Ltd., Ltd. as the enforcement officer for the seizure of remains in force from the distribution siren of Korean machinery; and (b) based on the original copy of the creditor Co., Ltd.’s seizure order, the Defendant was unable to identify the location of the said machinery attached with the seizure indication around August 2015 to the non-permanent state.

As a result, the defendant has harmed the effectiveness of attachment indication attached by a public official in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Part of each protocol (list 12, 15, 19) concerning the examination of the accused and the examination of the suspect by the police;

1. A protocol concerning interrogation of the police officer in relation to G (list 13);

1. Statement by the prosecutor of H and police statements (list 11,20);

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the complaint(s)(s)(1), siren written agreement(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(5), tax account(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s)(s

1. Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act, Article 140 of the same Act, and Article 140 of the Criminal Act concerning the crime;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Determination as to the assertion by the Defendant and his/her defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act

1. The summary of the assertion is the fact that the defendant concealed the above machinery in a state where the seizure indication is attached as above.

However, the above machinery is owned by the Korean machinery distribution siren Co., Ltd., and the Defendant was only the vehicle, and the above seizure against the above machinery owned by the said Korean machinery distribution siren is void as a matter of course.

In addition, the above seizure marks are automatically null and void.