A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the execution of the above punishment shall be suspended for one year from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant purchased Egys from D, and did not pay KRW 30,010,000 of the purchase price of KRW 38,010,000, and the Defendant was forced to file a claim for the purchase of goods from D. On September 21, 201, the conciliation was concluded on September 21, 201, and the conciliation was completed, and on December 19, 2013, the Daejeon District Court issued an enforcement officer office for Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court on December 19, 201, attached and executed the auction on agricultural machinery, such as Egys, which is the Defendant’s property, and sentenced the Defendant to escape compulsory execution by interfering with compulsory execution on seized agricultural machinery, etc.

1. On June 5, 2014, the Defendant destroyed and damaged the defective agricultural machinery seized in order to enforce a compulsory execution on the agricultural machinery seized by the Defendant’s office at Thai-gun E-gun, Chungcheongnam-do by setting a date of auction.

2. Around July 24, 2014, the Defendant concealed the 8-style egalitator, which was defective in order to enforce compulsory execution against the agricultural machinery seized by the Defendant’s owner, at the home of the said Defendant, at a different place, by setting the date of auction.

Accordingly, the defendant, by evading compulsory execution, has harmed D as a creditor.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Statement of D police statement;

1. Application of the Acts and subordinate statutes to the conciliation protocol, execution clause, certificate of delivery, and auction impossibility protocol;

1. Article 327 of the Criminal Act and the choice of punishment for the crime, Article 327 of the Criminal Act and the choice of imprisonment;

1. Of concurrent crimes, the former part of Article 37, Articles 38 (1) 2 and 50 of the Criminal Act;

1. As to the Defendant’s assertion under Article 62(1) of the suspended execution Act, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not return the religion promised to return to the victim, claiming only the price, and did not comply with compulsory execution. As such, the Defendant filed a complaint with the victim on the ground that the victim did not return the religion promised to return to the victim, but the investigation results.