Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 3,000,000.

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

Punishment of the crime

On April 3, 2019, the enforcement officer B of the Seoul Central District Court attached 24 kinds of goods owned by the Defendant on the copy of the F movables attachment decision of the Seoul Central District Court (a total of 69,200,000 won) by the creditor E in the Seoul Central District Court's residential building D, Jung-gu Seoul Central District Court, Seoul Central District Court's residential area on April 3, 2019.

However, around July 3, 2019, the Defendant carried out 15 items of attachment to the outside, such as [Attachment 2-16] Nos. 2 and 16 of the list of crimes, and has harmed their effectiveness.

Summary of Evidence

1. Determination as to the defendant's assertion about the defendant's partial statement in the prosecutor's protocol of interrogation of the defendant, a copy of the police's protocol of statement E, a copy of the attachment protocol, a copy of the investigation report of the seizure article inspection protocol (verification of the contents of the protocol of inspection of the seized article), an investigation report (verification of the object of auction), a list of the seized movables,

1. The summary of the argument was that each of the items indicated in the [Attachment 2-16] Nos. 2-16 in the list of crimes committed by the Defendant in the course of moving into the country. However, the Defendant was unaware of the fact that the attachment indication was attached to each of the above items. As such, the Defendant did not have the intention to commit the crime of invalidation of official duties.

2. The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence presented as evidence of guilt prior to the determination, namely, ① the head of the G Appraisal Office’s office visiting the site in relation to the appraisal of each of the instant seized goods around April 8, 2019, a director, and the head of the H and telephone call. Around that time, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant was aware of the seizure of each of the instant seized goods, including each of the said goods, and ② in the investigative agency and this court, the Defendant had already been aware of the seizure of each of the goods in the said residence, including each of the instant seized goods.