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

Around 10:00 on May 9, 2013, the Defendant, at the Defendant’s house located in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Daejeon District Court, D without permission, removed the attachment indication attached by the execution officer D, who was affiliated with the Daejeon District Court, on the part of the Defendant, on a total of KRW 1.180,00 in the market value of the goods owned by the Defendant and caused its utility.

On March 11, 2013, the above attachment indication was seized and attached by the original copy of the attachment report of corporeal movables No. 2013No. 273 by the execution officer D with the delegation of the execution of the creditor non-cases asset management loan (owner) on March 1, 2013.

Summary of Evidence

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Attachment report of corporeal movables and application of Acts and subordinate statutes on seizure list;

1. Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act and the choice of a fine concerning the crime;

1. Articles 70 (1) and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. Although the sentencing of Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act is erroneous, it is unreasonable to reduce the amount of fine imposed by the summary order as long as the repayment of debts or the recovery of damage is not made.