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

The facts charged were revised without modification of indictment to the extent that it does not substantially disadvantage the defendant's right of defense.

The Defendant owned 10% of the total market value of the total of 990,000 won of the total of the market value of the TV 1 set of TV at the time of Kim Sea, which is the previous residence, and the Defendant’s house located in subparagraph C.

The Seoul Central District Court 2017 tea163842 decided a payment order against the defendant, but it was not paid the debt, and it applied for compulsory execution against corporeal movables on October 12, 2019.

(C) On October 21, 2019, the execution officer of the Changwon District Court attached the goods at the defendant's home and attached a seizure mark on the goods with the execution delegation by the Changwon District Court D and with the original copy of the above payment order.

However, on January 8, 2020, the Defendant transferred the said goods without the consent of the execution officer or the Dispute Resolution, on the ground that 10 points of goods, including TVs with the attachment marking at Kimhae-si, and No. C, are G buildings and H directors at Kimhae-si.

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. Statement of statement to I by the police of the defendant;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to attachment report on corporeal movables, investigation report on impossibility of auction of corporeal movables (Submission of a photograph of goods indicated as attachment and date and time of directors);

1. Relevant Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act and Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act and the selection of fines for criminal facts;

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

1. While the Defendant committed the instant crime in the course of moving the seized object without the consent of an execution officer, etc., the Defendant did not dispose of the seized object.

The Defendant recognized the instant crime, thereby contravening the wrongness.

In addition, the sentencing prescribed by Article 51 of the Criminal Act, such as the age, character and conduct, environment, criminal record, motive of the crime, circumstances after the crime, etc.