except that the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

At around 09:50 on October 10, 2012, the Defendant: (a) executed a provisional attachment against one unit of 200 tons presses (13 million won at the market price of October 1997) at the same place as at the end of October 2012, the Defendant removed the indication of the provisional attachment at the same time as at the end of October 2012.

Accordingly, the defendant damaged the indication of attachment and other compulsory disposition that a public official performed in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of statutes to a report on attachment of corporeal movables, a list of seizure, and a report on impossibility of checking seized objects;

1. Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment with prison labor for the crime concerned;

1. As it is clearly stated in the indictment of separate embezzlement cases against the defendant for the reason of sentencing under Article 62(1) of the suspended sentence of the Criminal Act, the articles at issue in this case shall be determined by taking into account the following: (a) the ownership of the articles in this case cannot be deemed as having been substantially effective due to the lease of the filial Capital Co., Ltd.; and (b) the crime itself is also generated in the course of the disposition (Evidence Record 45-6); (c) there is no particular criminal power on the defendant; and (d) there

It is so decided as per Disposition for the above reasons.