The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. In fact, the Defendant did not sign the seizure protocol of the movable property of this case, and the value of the seized goods cannot be recognized. The seizure protocol adopted by the court below as evidence is invalid because it was made in violation of the law since fume did not state the statement that P is P.

In addition, there is also no valid inspection protocol of seized objects, which is written on the premise of a doubtful seizure protocol, and there is no proper specification of seized objects as stated in the facts charged.

In addition, the defendant did not instruct the disposal of seized articles, and the employees arbitrarily moved only to one factory for the convenience of truck entry.

B. The sentence of the lower court (six months of imprisonment, two years of suspended sentence) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the following circumstances revealed by the lower court’s judgment as to the assertion of mistake of facts and the evidence duly admitted and investigated by the court below, it is sufficiently recognized that the Defendant arbitrarily disposed of the goods totaling of 332 points, such as the Mandoman presses, and Article 21 of the attached Table 2 (hereinafter “goods subject to the instant disposition”) from among the seized goods as shown in the attached Table 1 List of Attached Crimes No. 2, which are legally seized by the Defendant. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

1) At the time when the police prepared a statement protocol regarding the seizure protocol of the movable property of this case, the Defendant made a statement to the effect that “A private person was exposed to the scambling of a white scam by entering a scam and E office. However, the seizure protocol of the movable property of this case was signed, without signing it on the seizure protocol of the movable property of this case, and that a private person was memoryd on the delivery protocol,” and later made a statement to the effect that “A private person was not present at the time of preparation of the suspect interrogation protocol at the police station,” and the prosecutor’s investigation is conducted.