The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant shall be innocent.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the defendant did not indicate the seizure of the holder's own ownership in the D factory and caused the use of the holder's property as necessary because it did not cause the seizure mark to the extent that it did not damage the seizure mark attached to the said holder.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged is that the Defendant owned a red mixer equivalent to KRW 200,000 at the market price in the D factory of the Defendant’s operation in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun (hereinafter “instant factory”).

On December 13, 2012, E with the delegation of enforcement by creditor F on December 13, 2012, the execution officer of the Daejeon District Court attached a seizure indication to the defendant's factory, including the above server, at the same court 2012No. 5599.

However, from December 13, 2012 to the 15th day of the same month, the Defendant brought without permission a seizure mark attached to the above-mentioned color server at the defendant's factory in the above-mentioned situation, thereby impairing its utility.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the facts charged of the instant case, based on the evidence in its holding, that the Defendant had concealed red marking attached to the said server without permission, by taking into account the facts charged.

C. However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

(1) The Defendant consistently asserts to the effect that, from the investigative agency to the court of first instance, the Defendant has consistently asserted from the investigative agency to the effect that “self-defense was used as the original owner of the above server, and as it did not carry a seizure indication, bringing the server to use it on another spot, and does not have any fact of removing or damaging a seizure indication attached to the server.”

(2) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, and ① the reasons for filing a complaint by the complainant F, the police officer, attached a seizure mark to the factory of this case on December 13, 2012, and all the items indicated in the seizure list. However, on January 15, 2013.