If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

On March 29, 2012, the Defendant seized 11 movables, such as the cooling house, computer, television, etc., owned by the Defendant according to the original protocol of mediation of the Daejeon District Court 201Gaso82132, according to the execution officer D’s delegation from creditors E, and upon entering the attachment indication, concealed the said movables to be kept by the Defendant on March 31, 201, at the same place as the said apartment 104 Dong-dong 903 at the same time.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement of the police statement of E;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to a report on attachment of corporeal movables, a seizure list, and a report of auction impossible;

1. Relevant Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning criminal facts, the choice of a fine, and the choice of a fine;

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

1. The defendant and his defense counsel's assertion on the assertion of the defendant and defense counsel under Article 334 (1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order requested the defendant to report the transfer of seized articles to a certified judicial scrivener before or after March 31, 2012, and the defendant thought that the above transfer report was accepted by the certified judicial scrivener, and therefore the defendant did not have the intention to conceal it.

The following circumstances acknowledged by the record, namely, ① the statement of F by the person in charge of the office of a certified judicial scrivener who requested a report on the transfer of seized objects, is consistent from the investigative agency to this court, ② the time when the auction of corporeal movables was not conducted due to the Defendant’s impossibility of identifying the location of the seized objects due to the Defendant’s director, was on May 9, 2012, which was the date when the Defendant’s director was on March 31, 2012. The Defendant did not confirm the report on the transfer of seized objects from the time when it was impossible to sell corporeal movables after the director to the time when it was impossible to do so, ③ the statement that the Defendant claimed as the demand for the report on the transfer of seized objects is sent and received.