If the defendant does not pay the above fine, the amount of KRW 100,000 shall be paid.

When the defendant, who has served as the representative director C, was aware of the fact that the seizure and sealing of the facilities managed by the above company was taken, he had a duty not to impair the utility thereof.

Nevertheless, the Defendant, at around February 9, 2015, caused the C office located in Chuncheon City, to bring one kind of automatic packaging machine, one food flag, and one food flag, owned by the Small and Medium Business Corporation, with a mark of seizure and sealing by the case of 1050 in Chuncheon District Court 2014.

As a result, the defendant has harmed the effectiveness of the attachment indication that public officials performed in relation to their duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Witnesses E and F legal statements;

1. A report on seizure of corporeal movables (net 34), a report on impossibility of auction of corporeal movables;

1. Application of statutes to investigative reports to items recovered by the Small and Medium Business Corporation;

1. Relevant legal provisions concerning criminal facts, Article 140 of the Criminal Act selective punishment, and the choice of fines;

1. Article 70(1) and Article 69(2) of the Criminal Act to attract a workhouse;

1. Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act concerning the order of provisional payment;

1. Determination as to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 186(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, which bears the costs of lawsuit

1. The gist of the assertion was that the Defendant did not have damaged the attachment indication of ① a large-amount automatic packaging machine, and one food package (hereinafter “each of the instant machines”), and ② notified the employees of the Small and Medium Business Corporation that each of the instant machines was the goods seized by the court.

2. In determining whether the crime of invalidation of an indication in the line of duty is established, it is sufficient to conceal the indication of seizure in addition to the impairment of the indication of seizure, or to impair the utility thereof by other means.

Thus, the facts charged in this case are that the defendant's employees have brought each of the machinery of this case with attachment display and its utility. Thus, the defendant's attachment indication is physical.