The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Fact-misunderstanding: The Defendant cannot be the subject of the crime of nullifying an indication in the line of duty because the obligor is not an execution of a disposition of prohibition of competitive business as stated in the facts charged (hereinafter “provisional disposition of this case”).

On the other hand, the defendant merely made a written notification of the execution of the provisional disposition A4 size as a paper, and did not physically damage it or impair its utility by other means.

Therefore, the defendant committed a crime of invalidation of indication in the line of duty.

The court below erred by misunderstanding the facts and affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

B. Sentencing: The sentence of the lower court (one million won in penalty) is too unreasonable.

2. Judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts

(a) A crime of invalidation of an indication in the line of duty is established when a public official damages or conceals a seal or attachment in connection with his duties or other indication of a compulsory disposition, or impairs its utility by other means, and the debtor's identity is not required.

On the other hand, there are procedural or substantive defects in the indication of seals, etc. conducted by public officials.

Even if it is objectively and generally recognized as a public official’s sealing, etc. performed in relation to his duties, it is the object of the crime of invalidation of an indication in the line of duty unless it is revoked by a lawful procedure (see Supreme Court Decision 9Do563, Apr. 21, 200, etc.). (b) circumstances revealed following the evidence duly adopted and investigated by the court below, namely, (i) the provisional disposition in this case cannot be deemed as legally void and non-existence; (ii) the provisional disposition in this case cannot be deemed as legally void and non-existence; and (iii) the above provisional disposition has not been revoked through a legitimate procedure; and (iv) the defendant’s act of having a written notice of provisional disposition in size A4 infringed the effectiveness of the execution regardless of whether the defendant

According to the fact that the defendant has infringed on the utility of the indication of compulsory disposition.