Nevertheless, the lower court acquitted the Defendant of the instant facts charged on the ground that the removal and execution of the instant land on the ground of 1,749 square meters prior to Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant land”) cannot be deemed to have been transferred to E, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misapprehending the legal doctrine.

2. Determination

A. The lower court found the Defendant not guilty of the charges of this case on the grounds that: (a) the crime of infringement on the effect of compulsory execution on real estate as prescribed in Article 142-2 of the Criminal Act was established when it intrudes on the “real estate stipulated by the said Act as compulsory execution” or impairs the utility of compulsory execution by any other means; (b) the removal and execution of a building on the ground that it does not include the occupancy transfer of the site cannot be deemed as a matter of course, and thus, (c) compulsory execution based on the final judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan16353, which ordered the removal of the building owned by the Defendant on the ground of the instant land cannot be deemed as having been transferred to E, and there

B. We examine the judgment of the party, and the interpretation of penal provisions should be strict in accordance with the principle of no punishment without the law, so it is reasonable to view that it is not allowed to expand the object of the infringement of the validity of real estate compulsory execution into the "real estate which is clear or delivered through the means of compulsory execution."

In addition, the decision ordering the removal of buildings and the delivery of land.