(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.01.31 2017고정206

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.01.31 2017고정206

공무상표시무효

Text

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

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

Reasons

Punishment of the crime

The Defendant, as the actual representative of the D plant located in Ansan-si, owned 1, rap 1, 1, and 1, vertical cotton machine in custody in the Defendant’s factory.

On April 12, 2016, the execution officer E attached the said articles at the Defendant’s factory and attached a seizure mark upon delegation of the enforcement of the creditor F. The execution officer E attached the said articles, based on the original copy of the decision of seizure of movable properties in the case No. 2013 A. 2800, the Suwon District Court at the time of Suwon District Court’s execution of the creditor F.

However, around April 14, 2016, the Defendant moved the seized goods from the Defendant’s factory to H located in G in the Y in the Yanananan City, thereby impairing the effectiveness of the seizure indication that the public official performed in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. A protocol concerning the interrogation of each police suspect against the accused;

1. Each police statement made to I, J, and F;

1. The Defendant alleged that there was no intention to commit the crime of invalidation of indication in the course of performing official duties, while the Defendant was aware at an investigative agency as to which certain goods were seized at the time of applying for the transfer of a place where seized objects were seized, a copy of the application for the transfer of seized objects, and each photographic materials [the Defendant and his defense counsel].

In light of the fact that the Defendant filed an application for the transfer of the instant goods after moving them to another place, and the Defendant did not completely notify the enforcement creditor or enforcement officer of the fact that the instant goods were transferred to another place other than the place indicated in the written application for the transfer of the said goods for two months, the Defendant may fully recognize the Defendant’s intention. Thus, the aforementioned argument is without merit.

In addition, the defendant and his defense counsel did not receive the notification of seizure, and they constitute excessive seizure.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2021.01.13 2020고단255

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2017.01.24 2016고정313

-광주지방법원 목포지원 2017.04.20 2016고단700

-서울북부지방법원 2018.09.21 2018고정385

-서울북부지방법원 2016.03.25 2014고단2576