When the defendant does not pay the above fine, 100,000 won.

The defendant is a person who was the representative of corporation B.

On October 15, 2012, the Defendant: (a) received the delegation from the execution officer of D, a creditor, to whom the execution officer of D; and (b) pursuant to the instant court’s decision of provisional seizure of movable properties with executive force in the instant case No. 8074, the Defendant seized goods equivalent to KRW 1,70,000 at the market price of 9 points, such as a cooling house, among movable properties owned by the Defendant; and (c) affixed a seizure mark; (d) however, from October 16, 2012 to around October 20, 2013, the Defendant used the indication of seizure that public officials performed in relation to their duties by relocating the seized goods from the Defendant’s office No. 102 Dong 220, 102, to non-explosion; and (e) concealed them from the Defendant’s office without permission.

Summary of Evidence

1. Statement by the defendant in court;

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

1. A protocol of seizure of corporeal movables, and a seizure list;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on inspection of seized objects;

1. Article 140 of the Criminal Act applicable to the crime, Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act, the selection of fines, and the selection of fines;

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

1. The reasons for sentencing under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act include: (a) the Defendant recognized his mistake and reflects against himself; (b) the Defendant has no record of being punished for the same kind of crime; (c) the Defendant cannot be seen as a planned crime; and (d) some of the circumstances that may be taken into account in the course of the crime, the penalty shall be partially reduced to determine the penalty as ordered by the summary order.