The judgment of the court below is reversed.

The defendant is not guilty. The summary of the judgment against the defendant shall be published.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The miscellaneous dogs seized by the original copy of the decision on the seizure of corporeal movables of this case in mistake of facts (hereinafter “the miscellaneous dogs of this case”) are owned by F rather than by the Defendant, and F was not actively engaged in bringing about the miscellaneous dogs of this case. Although F was not actively concealed, the lower court convicted the Defendant of the facts charged of this case. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the facts and adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. The sentence imposed by the court below on the grounds of unfair sentencing (the fine of KRW 3,000,000) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. The summary of the facts charged in the instant case was that the Defendant owned 3,50,000 won in total, including 3,200,000,000 market prices, from the Defendant’s house located in Dongdu City B.

In accordance with the delegation of creditor D, C attached the above court E-corporeal movables attachment decision around June 19, 2012 and around September 5, 2012, the execution officer of the Dong Government District Court attached the above objects at the defendant's home and displayed the attachment on the objects.

Nevertheless, around September 23, 2012, the Defendant transferred 19 mags out of 32 mags with the attachment mark to F, who claimed that the Defendant was the actual owner of the above miscellaneous dog at the above Defendant’s house.

As a result, the defendant has harmed the effectiveness of the attachment indication that public officials performed in relation to their duties.

B. The lower court found the Defendant guilty of the instant facts charged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence presented in its judgment.

C. In full view of the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the lower court’s judgment 1, based on the witness H, I’s respective legal statements, witness D and C’s respective legal statements, the Defendant, from around 2011 to around H’s residence, was in charge of H’s checks while living in a separate debt located in H’s residence. At the time of the check, there was about 70 maris, but around 40 maris among them were F’s and approximately 20 mas.