공무상표시무효
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The defendant shall be innocent.
1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is to hear the horses of an execution officer who will be subject to a transfer of the notice form and to transfer the notice form, and there was no criminal intent to harm their utility by removing and destroying the notice form.
Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.
2. In the trial of the court below, the ex officio determination prosecutor applied for the amendment of indictment with the content that the indictment was modified as stated in the facts charged in the third paragraph (a) below, and the judgment of the court below cannot be maintained any more as it is, since this court permitted it.
Despite such reasons for ex officio destruction, the defendant's assertion of mistake of facts is still subject to the judgment of this court within the scope of the modified facts charged, and this is examined below.
3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion
A. From September 19, 2012 to the obligor of the decision of prohibition of possession or provisional disposition of real estate transfer by the Daegu District Court Branch 2012Kadan2062, the Defendant: (a) around September 19, 2012, the Defendant attached a notice to the obligor of the decision of prohibition of possession or transfer of real estate; (b) the owner of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the building of the Ma-gu, North-gu, Ma-gu, Ma-gu; (c) the enforcement officer who belongs to the port support, delegated the execution of G by the creditor; and (d) in accordance with the above decision,
However, the defendant seems to have seized the entire commercial buildings due to the announcement attached to the above temporary location, and the public announcement was removed without permission, thereby harming its utility.
B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged prior to the instant change on the grounds of each legal statement, etc. of G, H and F (a difference between the modified facts charged and the location where the notice was attached).