Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 2,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant owned 128 points of goods in the market price, which are stored in the “E” business establishment located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Nowon-gu, and 2 others.

On June 27, 2013, the enforcement officer F belonging to the Busan District Court was delegated by G with the execution of the creditor G, and the said goods were seized at the defendant's business establishment on June 15:38, 2013 by the original copy of the provisional seizure order of tangible real estate in the above court No. 2013Kadan1504.

However, around July 31, 2013, the Defendant entered into a contract for transfer of H rights (facilities) with H, and sold the said goods together, thereby impairing their utility.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of the witness H;

1. Protocol of the police statement concerning G;

1. A written decision on provisional seizure of corporeal movables and a report on attachment of corporeal movables;

1. Application of a right transfer contract, lease contract or statute;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

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

1. As to the assertion of the defendant and his defense counsel under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the provisional payment order, the defendant and defense counsel disposed of the corporeal movables provisionally seized by the defendant.

Even if the assignee of the provisional attachment was notified at the time of the disposition, and it was transferred on the condition that it would be resolved by purchase, etc. even if it was won or not, so it cannot be said that the utility of the indication on official duty could not be impaired.

In the crime of invalidation of an indication in the line of duty under Article 140(1) of the Criminal Act, the phrase "a public official's act of impairing its utility by any other means such as seizure or other indication of execution of his/her duties." The phrase "an act that actually reduces or destroys the validity of the indication by any other means other than damage or concealment." It does not mean that the effect of the indication itself should be invalidated by the legal effect of the disposition, which is the basis of the indication

Supreme Court Decision 200 delivered on October 28, 2004