The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. misunderstanding of facts and misapprehension of legal principles (as to the invalidity of indication in the line of duty), although the defendant has moved or mixed part of the movable property of this case, it cannot be deemed that this would impair the utility of a seizure indication. As such, the attachment indication of the movable property of this case is not intentionally damaged, since it was anticipated that the execution officer's consent was accepted, part of the movable property of this case was moved or mixed.

2) Even if the Defendant’s act constitutes a requirement for establishing an invalidation of indication in the line of duty, the Defendant committed the same act as the facts charged for the purpose of preventing the deterioration, etc. of the instant movable property, and thus constitutes a justifiable act.

3) In light of the above circumstances, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of this part of the charges is erroneous in the misapprehension of facts and misapprehension of legal principles, which affected the conclusion of the judgment

B. The sentence of the lower court against the wrongful defendant in sentencing (the imprisonment of five months and the fine of five million won) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. 1) Judgment of the court below on the misunderstanding of facts and legal principles 1) The defendant alleged the same purport in the court below's determination whether the defendant intentionally damaged the attachment indication of the movable property of this case, and the court below, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, the defendant damaged the attachment indication of the movable property of this case and had the intention to impair the effectiveness of the attachment indication of the movable property of this case at the time.

The decision was determined.

(1) First, according to the above evidence, most of the seizure marks at the time of the inspection of the seizure of the instant movable property are recognized.

The defendant also recognizes that most of the seizure marks are away from the movable, but in the case of a corporeal movable, it is different from the outside in the case of a corporeal movable stored in freezing by rainwater.