Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 1,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant is a person who has leased the Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building 111-2 and operated a pharmacy and F.

On November 11, 2011, G obtained ownership by winning a successful bid for the above store, and filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for a specification of the building against the Defendant on December 28, 2011, and on December 28, 2011, as to the above 111-2 store with the Defendant as the debtor, G was rendered a provisional disposition prohibiting transfer of real estate possession (Seoul Western District Court 201Kadan10161).

Nevertheless, around January 3, 2014, the Defendant changed the name of the business operator F in F in the above 111-2 from the sole name of the Defendant to the name of the joint business operator of the Defendant and H, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the indication of provisional disposition prohibiting the transfer of real estate possession.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. The police statement concerning G;

1. Decision on the name of the building at 2012Kadan202874, Seoul Western District Court Decision 2011Kadan10161, Seoul Western District Court Decision on the Provisional Disposition for the Prohibition of Transfer of Real Estate Points, a delivery notification protocol of real estate, an investigation report (to telephone conversations between the Seoul Western District Court and the execution office);

1. Application of the certified copy of the real estate register and the F business registration certificate;

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. Of the crimes of invalidation of indication in the line of duty under Article 140(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act of the conviction of the provisional payment order under Article 334(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act, the phrase "an act that impairs the utility of the indication by any other means such as seizure or other indication of other compulsory measures performed by a public official with respect to his/her duties" means the act that actually destroys the indication in a way other than damage or concealment, and it does not mean that the effect of the disposition

(See Supreme Court Decision 2003Do8238 delivered on October 28, 2004). This Court has duly adopted and investigated this case.