Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 4,000,000.

If the defendant does not pay the above fine, 50,000 won.

Punishment of the crime

On April 19, 2013, the Defendant was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for four months at the Jeonju District Court on April 19, 2013 and the said judgment became final and conclusive on June 27, 2013.

The defendant owned 180,000 won of the market price, such as the cooling house and one unit, at the house of the defendant in the following cities:

The execution officer D, under the delegation of the execution by creditors E, seized the above goods at the Defendant’s home on January 3, 2012, based on the original copy of the provisional seizure order for corporeal movables, No. 2011Kadan884 of the above court, and attached a seizure mark on the goods.

However, on January 2012, the Defendant removed without permission a seizure mark attached to the above goods from the Defendant’s house at the Defendant’s house.

Accordingly, the Defendant damaged the attachment indication that a public official performed in relation to his duties.

Summary of Evidence

1. Partial statement of the defendant;

1. Legal statement of witness F;

1. Statement to E by the police;

1. Application of Acts and subordinate statutes to the ruling of corporeal movables, provisional seizure and inspection record of seized objects;

1. Relevant provisions of the Criminal Act concerning facts constituting an offense and Article 140 (1) of the Criminal Act selecting a penalty;

1. The latter part of Article 37 and the former part of Article 39 (1) of the Criminal Act concerning concurrent crimes;

1. Articles 70 and 69 (2) of the Criminal Act for the detention of a workhouse;

1. The defendant and his defense counsel asserted that there was no criminal intention since they had been moved to the F working in the execution office after hearing the statement that they will move the goods.

However, in this court, the witness F stated that there is no fact by asking whether or not the defendant presents his judgment, but there is no circumstance to suspect the F's above statement. Thus, according to each evidence submitted by the prosecutor, the criminal intent regarding the damage of the defendant's attachment can be fully acknowledged.

Therefore, we cannot accept the above argument of the defendant and his defense counsel.