The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the execution officer already sold each of the seized objects to K prior to marking the seizure, and that the seizure is deemed to have been withdrawn by mutual consent with the creditor F, and thus, the defendant is not subject to the crime of invalidation of indication in the line of duty against the defendant.

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged of this case is erroneous and adversely affected by the judgment.

2. According to the evidence duly adopted and examined by the lower court, the Defendant: (a) sold to K the singing points on March 27, 2014 at KRW 150 million with each of the seized items; (b) received the down payment of KRW 15 million from K on the same day; (c) the execution officer entrusted the enforcement of F on April 2, 2014 with each of the attached items on the same day, attached each of the attached items on the original copy of the payment order; (c) the Defendant, without notifying K of the fact that each of the attached items was seized on April 18, 2014, without notifying the fact that each of the attached items was seized to K, at the same time, received the remainder of KRW 135 million with each of the attached items, and at the same time, delivered them with each of the attached items with each of the seized items removed; and (d) the Defendant still did not withdraw the attached items after the execution officer’s display of the attached items to the owner, and thus, still meet the requirements of the seizure.

Therefore, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

3. If so, the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed under Article 364 (4) of the Criminal Procedure Act. It is so decided as per Disposition.

However, the judgment of the court below is dismissed.