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

On October 10, 2014, the execution officer of Suwon District Court delegated by B, who is his own creditor, indicated the attachment as to the goods kept by the Defendant at the defendant's house of the defendant of Suwon-gu C apartment D, which is accepted by the Daejeon District Court's Daejeon District Court's 2012Gadan11033, based on the executory judgment of the case of loan claim, the defendant indicated the attachment of 17 points (the total market value of KRW 4.110,00,000).

On September 21, 2017, the Defendant removed a seizure mark of 17 points of the goods on which the seizure mark is affixed with the intent to escape from compulsory execution at the above place, and 8 points of which are discarded, thereby impairing the utility of the indication of compulsory disposition and evading compulsory execution at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Each police interrogation protocol against the accused;

1. The police statement concerning B;

1. Investigation report (Adjustment of the condition of seized goods);

1. Attachment report and seizure list ( October 10, 2014) of preparation of execution officers of the Suwon District Court;

1. A copy of the written judgment for the Daejeon District Court's 2012Gadan1033; and

1. The complainant (the defendant and his defense counsel) asserted that the defendant was exempted from liability in the Seoul Rehabilitation Court case No. 2018, Dec. 17, 2018, 2018, 101146, 2018Hadan 101146, and at the time, the list of claims included B was also included in B’s claim. Since the defendant was able to cancel the seizure requested by B, he received such explanation from the law firm related person and removed the seizure indication, so that he did not have any intention to evade compulsory execution, it would impair the effectiveness of the indication of compulsory disposition and avoid compulsory execution. However, the defendant removed the seizure indication of 17 points attached with the seizure indication as stated in the criminal facts in the judgment in the course of directors at the existing place of residence at the end of 2017, and discarded eight points among them (the crime of this case was committed before the defendant claimed to grant immunity. Thus, the defendant and his defense counsel's allegation on other premise is acceptable.